This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
To the league, sure. To the team that pays him, sure. But, as a fan, of course I hope he sues and wins. Hopefully it will at least get the ball rolling and the outdated practice will be addressed. I don't expect it to happen, but I want it to.
This might be the exchange in question. Not sure. If so, "admitted [he] was wrong" seems to be an overstatement, but he did respond to the statement that the Ohio law he cited doesn't apply with "Perhaps, but..."
1. The league would sue the state and win.
Yeah, sue for ridiculousness. Rock solid.BusterTBronco said:
JMHO, expressing disappointment that the NFL didn't exercise 'discretion' in his favor is not exactly laying out the foundation of a compelling legal argument. He's basically complained that they did not make an exception for him, not argued that he was entitled to one on some basis. If the statement was a precursor for litigation, you'd expect him (or let's be honest, his attorneys) to refer to the outcome as an arbitrary or inconsistent decision, or one that was wrong on some legal ground. That's not to say litigation won't happen, but his statement doesn't make it seem all lined up for it. I'm interested in whether attorneys would be willing to put the time and effort into a prolonged appeal process & future payday when he's established he can't stay away from the cheeba (and other trouble) even when his professional career and millions of dollars are at stake. Who the heck knows what he might do between now and a successful appeal? He seems like a bad investment unless he can pay legal fees up front, with future earning potential highly in doubt.Soulfly3 said:
Watcha hunting (besides a starting WR)?Soulfly3 said:Nah, Ill be in Northern Ontario on a hunting trip. No reception. So good news or bad news, I gotta get all my fun/laughs in today.Khy said:Likely story... I bet if the rulings in your favor you're flight mysteriously gets cancelledSoulfly3 said:
I don't disagree with you about the policy, but anyone who thought that the arbitrator was going to reduce the suspension was delusional/ignoring the facts. That was never a possibility.dschuler said:
On what basis?
Moose.Watcha hunting (besides a starting WR)?Soulfly3 said:Nah, Ill be in Northern Ontario on a hunting trip. No reception. So good news or bad news, I gotta get all my fun/laughs in today.Khy said:Likely story... I bet if the rulings in your favor you're flight mysteriously gets cancelledSoulfly3 said:
Good luck.
On the basis that companies have a right to drug test in order keep their employees safe.
A constitutional right?
Do states sign contracts with NFL franchises for the right to have the teams?
Companies wouldn't have that right if states passed laws against it ...
Exactly. The state might sue. And it might win. But far from guaranteed. However, I can't imagine a state passing such a silly law.
He still has two years left on a cheap rookie deal. They aren't going to cut him and would need at least a middle round pick to trade him.
The first line of that article: "I've already explained why Josh Gordon should win his appeal."zandbak said:
That guy is terrible and I hope the provost of whatever university he get his law degree from finds out and changes his grades to all F's.
It's a collectively bargained policy. The NFL doesn't have the ability to make unilateral changes to it.
I'm not against testing for marijuana in the NFL at all, but if there was a concession to not test for it in exchange for HGH testing, I'd be all for it.
No chit. Maybe Gordon thinks his best chance to stay clean is to play this eason. If that's the case, then why wouldn't he sue?
On the Basis that the NFL is a Private employer and can set what ever standards they wish for their employees. States cannot demand an employer to prohibit the use of a substance.
So ... no law in support of your claim? Dismissed
Again, on what basis?
The denial goes deeper!
The guy breaks rules constantly and is always in the news and you want to let him back him? Ummm, no; you have to cut the cancer out and throw it away.
And the Giants should have cut Lawrence Taylor, the Packers should have cut Brett Favre, the Cowboys should have cut Michael Irvin......
Wait, what? The outdated practice? Of what? Enforcing punishment for rules that are (repeatedly) broken?
