Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Matt Waldman
 Share Followers 17

Recommended Posts

GroveDiesel

GroveDiesel 9,226

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

beer 30

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

msudaisy26

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.

DropKick

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

Concept Coop

Concept Coop 1,764

Posted
Posted
Right. But at some point, rules have to matter and violating rules over and over have to matter. Players supported the rules and punishments. Gordon valued pot over catching TDs for his team and making money. He's an idiot and this is the unfortunate and inevitable consequence.

And don't fret too much. You'll see plenty of TDs this year.

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 Hopefully it will at least get the ball rolling and the outdated practice will be addressed.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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maurile Tremblay

Maurile Tremblay 22,539

Posted
Posted
I'm told that the author admitted on twitter that his main argument (about Ohio law) was wrong. I don't really do twitter, so I didn't see it.

From checking out his Twitter feed, I highly doubt he admitted his argument was wrong. He seems to believe 100% that Gordon should file for a TRO and would win.

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..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
The General

The General 24,599

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

Bump all Vikings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BassNBrew

BassNBrew 11,189

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

2. The league would test them while on the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigJim®

BigJim® 1,060

Posted
Posted

yup. he was none to remorseful to the NFL. took a solid jab w his comment.

seems all lined up for some lawsuit actionnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BassNBrew

BassNBrew 11,189

Posted
Posted

Well, gents....

It's been a blast. Got to know some of you pretty well. Some of you have a bit to work on in regards to just having a little fun, but all in all, it was the funnest thread Ive ever taken part in.

Regardless of the outcome, Ill be here. Actually, I leave for vacation tomorrow for 5 days, so I do hope the announcement comes today.

Thumbs up, dudes.

Likely story... I bet if the rulings in your favor you're flight mysteriously gets cancelled :cool:

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.

Watcha hunting (besides a starting WR)?

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PatsWillWin

PatsWillWin 669

Posted
Posted

Have to believe that IF Gordon's team is taking this to court, it's already been worked on for weeks now...

Maybe that's why "his" statement reads the way it does...

yup. he was none to remorseful to the NFL. took a solid jab w his comment.

seems all lined up for some lawsuit actionnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

I dont care if he wins or not, so long as he steps on that field this season

I have taken Gordon in every league I have this season, mainly because I thought he would only serve 6 or 8 games and be available in the playoffs.. I really want Gordon to win because I have him in all my leagues of course but also I think the NFL is completely ####### backwards these days. Stop worrying about goal post dunks and pot heads and start worrying about empty stadiums and health related issues. Drive me nuts.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bamac

Bamac 92

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Soulfly3

Soulfly3 4,406

Posted
Posted

Well, gents....

It's been a blast. Got to know some of you pretty well. Some of you have a bit to work on in regards to just having a little fun, but all in all, it was the funnest thread Ive ever taken part in.

Regardless of the outcome, Ill be here. Actually, I leave for vacation tomorrow for 5 days, so I do hope the announcement comes today.

Thumbs up, dudes.

Likely story... I bet if the rulings in your favor you're flight mysteriously gets cancelled :cool:

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.

Watcha hunting (besides a starting WR)?

Good luck.

Moose.

And maybe a wolf or two to help thin the population, if I can

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
KellysHeroes

KellysHeroes 226

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

I'm sure that would be breaking the agreement for the state to have the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cstu

cstu 6,086

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

On the basis that companies have a right to drug test in order keep their employees safe.

Yes, it's BS when talking about weed, but it's an argument they would win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bamac

Bamac 92

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

On the basis that companies have a right to drug test in order keep their employees safe.

Yes, it's BS when talking about weed, but it's an argument they would win.

A constitutional right?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bamac

Bamac 92

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?
I'm sure that would be breaking the agreement for the state to have the team.
Do states sign contracts with NFL franchises for the right to have the teams?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maurile Tremblay

Maurile Tremblay 22,539

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

On the basis that companies have a right to drug test in order keep their employees safe.

Yes, it's BS when talking about weed, but it's an argument they would win.

Companies wouldn't have that right if states passed laws against it ...

... unless those state laws were preempted by federal drug-testing laws, which is evidently kind of complicated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bamac

Bamac 92

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

On the basis that companies have a right to drug test in order keep their employees safe.

Yes, it's BS when talking about weed, but it's an argument they would win.

Companies wouldn't have that right if states passed laws against it ...

... unless those state laws were preempted by federal drug-testing laws, which is evidently kind of complicated.

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
cstu

cstu 6,086

Posted
Posted

One think I am sure of, he'll never play for the Browns again. Theres no way they can allow him back in the locker room. I could see NYJ or Dal taking a shot on him.

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.

Don't think they get a pick since they couldn't trade him last year before he failed another test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
georg013

georg013 344

Posted
Posted

Hater's Rant!!!

YES!!! Just heard the news and cracked open a cold one! Josh is getting the 16 games he DESERVES. My daughter thinks we are throwing a party for her but she's not the reason we are throwing a "Sweet 16"celebration this weekend! Har har! Addicts should not be allowed to play a single snap in the NFL. I want all the players I watch on tv to be drug free so my children can look up to them. Josh Gordon is a demon. If he didn't get a full 16, I was going to write the league. I still think he needs another 16 for the DUI but one gift at a time, right!!! Right?!!! Man, it feels so GOOD to finally watch Soulfly admit defeat. I LIVE for that. To be right in this thread! Nothing gets me going more than being right and someone else being wrong! Hell, I haven't felt so stongly against a person since the OJ Simpson trial. I lost that one so this kind of makes up for it. I am hoping he sues so I can continue to have someone to root against. They let that damn Rice off the hook easy and Prater is suspended for four games (THANK GOD!) I'm running out of people to hate! I hate Trent Richardson because he sucks. I hate Bradford because he is always hurt. I hate Peyton Manning because he dances funny. I hate Tom Brady because he is in New England. I HATE EVERYTHING!!!!!!!! AND IT FEELS GOOD! I WAS RIGHT - YOU WERE WRONG!! YES! Keep this thread going. I am nothing without it! Actually, I hate this forum! HA! Gordon got what he deserved! I would like to think my hate had something to do with that. HIGH five to self! Wait, I am starting to hate myself. I take my high five back.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
cstu

cstu 6,086

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hater's Rant!!!

YES!!! Just heard the news and cracked open a cold one! Josh is getting the 16 games he DESERVES. My daughter thinks we are throwing a party for her but she's not the reason we are throwing a "Sweet 16"celebration this weekend! Har har! Addicts should not be allowed to play a single snap in the NFL. I want all the players I watch on tv to be drug free so my children can look up to them. Josh Gordon is a demon. If he didn't get a full 16, I was going to write the league. I still think he needs another 16 for the DUI but one gift at a time, right!!! Right?!!! Man, it feels so GOOD to finally watch Soulfly admit defeat. I LIVE for that. To be right in this thread! Nothing gets me going more than being right and someone else being wrong! Hell, I haven't felt so stongly against a person since the OJ Simpson trial. I lost that one so this kind of makes up for it. I am hoping he sues so I can continue to have someone to root against. They let that damn Rice off the hook easy and Prater is suspended for four games (THANK GOD!) I'm running out of people to hate! I hate Trent Richardson because he sucks. I hate Bradford because he is always hurt. I hate Peyton Manning because he dances funny. I hate Tom Brady because he is in New England. I HATE EVERYTHING!!!!!!!! AND IT FEELS GOOD! I WAS RIGHT - YOU WERE WRONG!! YES! Keep this thread going. I am nothing without it! Actually, I hate this forum! HA! Gordon got what he deserved! I would like to think my hate had something to do with that. HIGH five to self! Wait, I am starting to hate myself. I take my high five back.

That reads almost exactly like an Oscar the Grouch book I read to my daughter.

Edited by cstu
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
MoveToSkypager

MoveToSkypager 288

Posted
Posted

The first line of that article: "I've already explained why Josh Gordon should win his appeal."

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
GregR

GregR 5,902

Posted
Posted

So... How could the NFL change their silly drug policy and still save face? Maybe if one of their players sued them over it...

It's a collectively bargained policy. The NFL doesn't have the ability to make unilateral changes to it.

If the policy ends up changed, it's probably a good bet that the league making concessions on testing for recreational drugs will be matched by the NFLPA making concessions somewhere else. Like on HGH testing.

I suppose if it was the league's priority to save face they could then blame the players. I'd hope it wouldn't come to that. Both sides are too combative as it is considering that both owners and players are fat cats with the current state of the NFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pots

Pots 168

Posted
Posted

So... How could the NFL change their silly drug policy and still save face? Maybe if one of their players sued them over it...

It's a collectively bargained policy. The NFL doesn't have the ability to make unilateral changes to it.

If the policy ends up changed, it's probably a good bet that the league making concessions on testing for recreational drugs will be matched by the NFLPA making concessions somewhere else. Like on HGH testing.

I suppose if it was the league's priority to save face they could then blame the players. I'd hope it wouldn't come to that. Both sides are too combative as it is considering that both owners and players are fat cats with the current state of the NFL.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Franknbeans

Franknbeans 1,951

Posted
Posted

OK, so how many times per month does Gordon have to piss in a cup now? This dude is essentially unemployed now with lots and lots of free time. I presume he's still rich (or at least he thinks he is). These are bad combinations.

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ebaker5

Ebaker5 30

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

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.

Edited by Ebaker5
Link to post
Share on other sites
cstu

cstu 6,086

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

If a state passed such a law their right to test drivers for illegal substances would immediately be challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bamac

Bamac 92

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

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
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bamac

Bamac 92

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

If a state passed such a law their right to test drivers for illegal substances would immediately be challenged.

Again, on what basis?
Link to post
Share on other sites
False Start

False Start 128

Posted
Posted (edited)

I dont lose.

:lmao:

as of this second, June 29, 2014, he is playing all 16 games of the 2014 season.

Not as of this second!

If he HASNT yet been suspended

And ESPN Cleveland is reporting the Browns are showing a sense of confidence re: Gordon

...... This could get HILARIOUS in here.

Oh, it is.

Edited by False Start
Link to post
Share on other sites
KellysHeroes

KellysHeroes 226

Posted
Posted

One think I am sure of, he'll never play for the Browns again. Theres no way they can allow him back in the locker room. I could see NYJ or Dal taking a shot on him.

Why not?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
placebo

placebo 4

Posted
Posted

One think I am sure of, he'll never play for the Browns again. Theres no way they can allow him back in the locker room. I could see NYJ or Dal taking a shot on him.

Why not?

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.

Guess they better cut Manziel too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VaTerp

VaTerp 579

Posted
Posted (edited)

One think I am sure of, he'll never play for the Browns again. Theres no way they can allow him back in the locker room. I could see NYJ or Dal taking a shot on him.

Why not?

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.

Guess they better cut Manziel too.

And the Giants should have cut Lawrence Taylor, the Packers should have cut Brett Favre, the Cowboys should have cut Michael Irvin......

ETA- The Browns owner should probably sell the team too.

The moral superiority of this place cracks me up sometimes.

Edited by VaTerp
Link to post
Share on other sites
Proust Loves Cake

Proust Loves Cake 44

Posted
Posted

Right. But at some point, rules have to matter and violating rules over and over have to matter. Players supported the rules and punishments. Gordon valued pot over catching TDs for his team and making money. He's an idiot and this is the unfortunate and inevitable consequence.

And don't fret too much. You'll see plenty of TDs this year.

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.

Wait, what? The outdated practice? Of what? Enforcing punishment for rules that are (repeatedly) broken?

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.

×
 Share
Followers 17
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...