Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
WR Josh Gordon, KC (15 Viewers)
- Thread starter Matt Waldman
- Start date
CYP
Champion Truth Teller
I'm not buying the analysis from Rosenthal or Breer. If the NFLPA believes that the marijuana policy is unjust, they will be advocating for reinstatement of all players currently suspended who wouldn't have otherwise been. Really, that's the only just outcome if the new drug policy is to be applied retroactively, as time of positive test (e.g. 2/2014 vs. 3/2014) is a morally arbitrary factor.
Captain Quinoa
Footballguy
Jerry Curl
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Let me see if I have this right: NFL players will be voting on whether they can use more pot and less HGH. - Is that about the size of it?
Just an opinion from Salfino:
Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfinohttps://twitter.com/MichaelSalfino · 6m
New agreement also is math. Can't remember public negotiations in sports falling apart so close to finish line. But say 1 in 5 do. So, 80%.
Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfinohttps://twitter.com/MichaelSalfino · 5m
Meaning there's a 4 in 5 chance, conservatively, that new policy is quickly agreed to. Gordon reinstatement locked. So you own 80% of Gordon
Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfinohttps://twitter.com/MichaelSalfino · 6m
New agreement also is math. Can't remember public negotiations in sports falling apart so close to finish line. But say 1 in 5 do. So, 80%.
Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfinohttps://twitter.com/MichaelSalfino · 5m
Meaning there's a 4 in 5 chance, conservatively, that new policy is quickly agreed to. Gordon reinstatement locked. So you own 80% of Gordon
Summary?It is a strong word, which is why I chose to use it.Go on, I'm listening. Reprehensible is a strong word.
Here's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-nfls-absurd-marijuana-policy.html?_r=0
I am all for players smoking pot. I don't have any issue with it at all. Not sure I would call it medically indefensible or morally reprehensible to ban it though. I think the NFL is trying to stay in step with societal standards, and despite what I amy want, its still frowned up on most of the red states. As laws are changed, so too will the NFL's stance - but if you don't have anything better - its not morally reprehensible nor is it medically indefensible - there are lots of treatments that do not require marijuana.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
to be fair, that was 300 sheets of paper, and the only reason it did not have more was because it just got so damn expensive to mail the package on to the next person.
This guy also said
He's just looking at the reports that are out there and giving his take on them. His take is inaccurate, in many of his tweets.
Two minutes later, he said:
So, he tweets one thing, then contradicts himself immediately? That's weird.
kip stabone
Footballguy
Don't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It sounds like the rep is doing a poll to get a check on how the team will vote when asked.
Last edited by a moderator:
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
UH OH
Why does your link go to this thread?
How can he do this if they are still working on the proposal?
"How will you vote?"
"on what-what is the proposal?"
"can't tell you that, how will you vote?"
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
kip stabone
Footballguy
kip stabone
Footballguy
Questions:
1. Is HGH identical to steroids regarding their harmful side effects?
2. Have steroids been proven to have these harmful side effects (brain tumors) or has it been vilified unjustly due to anecdotal rumors or perhaps even because of users that didn't take the drugs under medical supervision?
3. Aren't steroids and HGH legal drugs when prescribed by a physician and aren't they used everyday for various medical ailments?
4. Is the HGH and steroid crusade a politically driven agenda without scientific merit?
LawFitz
Footballguy
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Captain Quinoa
Footballguy
VaTerp
Footballguy
Well, laws ARE changing now. 35 states and the District now allow some form of medical marijuana. And speaking of laws the DEA has been quietly investigating the NFL's role in prescription drug abuse. It's pretty evident that the NFL fosters an environment in which team doctors push prescription drugs on players as a form of pain management to get them back on the field as quickly as possible. Players can obtain prescription drugs in high dosages and on pretty much on the spot, which in another context would be illegal. Plus the legal argument has always been a poor one IMO anyway. This country's marijuana laws are also indefensible and morally reprehensible for other reasons. And when did the NFL become a law enforcement agency? In the commonwealth of Virginia it's technically illegal for two adults, including married couples, to perform oral sex on each other. Is the NFL doing it's due diligence on all Redskins players to see if they are breaking this law?Summary?It is a strong word, which is why I chose to use it.
Here's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-nfls-absurd-marijuana-policy.html?_r=0
I am all for players smoking pot. I don't have any issue with it at all. Not sure I would call it medically indefensible or morally reprehensible to ban it though. I think the NFL is trying to stay in step with societal standards, and despite what I amy want, its still frowned up on most of the red states. As laws are changed, so too will the NFL's stance - but if you don't have anything better - its not morally reprehensible nor is it medically indefensible - there are lots of treatments that do not require marijuana.
Back to the topic. Medical marijuana has been proven as a treatment OPTION for many patients who suffer from the sort of ailments that NFL players, by the very nature of their job, suffer from on a daily basis.
So the summary is this. The NFL pushes, and enters into financially beneficial agreements with companies that promote, prescription drug use and what many would consider abuse. Most of these prescription drugs have acknowledged very serious negative side effects in both the short and long term. At the same time the NFL prohibits the use of marijuana which again has been medically proven to offer many of the pain management benefits of the prescription drugs with little to none of the known negative side effects. To the point that a player can be banned from the league for multiple failed testing at a threshold that is 4 times less than air traffic controllers whose jobs are a matter of public safety.
In my view, this is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible. You don't have to agree but that's my view and one that I will defend strongly.
LawFitz
Footballguy
All valid thoughts. Worthy of a separate thread.Well, laws ARE changing now. 35 states and the District now allow some form of medical marijuana. And speaking of laws the DEA has been quietly investigating the NFL's role in prescription drug abuse. It's pretty evident that the NFL fosters an environment in which team doctors push prescription drugs on players as a form of pain management to get them back on the field as quickly as possible. Players can obtain prescription drugs in high dosages and on pretty much on the spot, which in another context would be illegal. Plus the legal argument has always been a poor one IMO anyway. This country's marijuana laws are also indefensible and morally reprehensible for other reasons. And when did the NFL become a law enforcement agency? In the commonwealth of Virginia it's technically illegal for two adults, including married couples, to perform oral sex on each other. Is the NFL doing it's due diligence on all Redskins players to see if they are breaking this law?Summary?It is a strong word, which is why I chose to use it.
Here's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-nfls-absurd-marijuana-policy.html?_r=0
I am all for players smoking pot. I don't have any issue with it at all. Not sure I would call it medically indefensible or morally reprehensible to ban it though. I think the NFL is trying to stay in step with societal standards, and despite what I amy want, its still frowned up on most of the red states. As laws are changed, so too will the NFL's stance - but if you don't have anything better - its not morally reprehensible nor is it medically indefensible - there are lots of treatments that do not require marijuana.
Back to the topic. Medical marijuana has been proven as a treatment OPTION for many patients who suffer from the sort of ailments that NFL players, by the very nature of their job, suffer from on a daily basis.
So the summary is this. The NFL pushes, and enters into financially beneficial agreements with companies that promote, prescription drug use and what many would consider abuse. Most of these prescription drugs have acknowledged very serious negative side effects in both the short and long term. At the same time the NFL prohibits the use of marijuana which again has been medically proven to offer many of the pain management benefits of the prescription drugs with little to none of the known negative side effects. To the point that a player can be banned from the league for multiple failed testing at a threshold that is 4 times less than air traffic controllers whose jobs are a matter of public safety.
In my view, this is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible. You don't have to agree but that's my view and one that I will defend strongly.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
VaTerp
Footballguy
True. Sorry for the hijack.All valid thoughts. Worthy of a separate thread.Well, laws ARE changing now. 35 states and the District now allow some form of medical marijuana. And speaking of laws the DEA has been quietly investigating the NFL's role in prescription drug abuse. It's pretty evident that the NFL fosters an environment in which team doctors push prescription drugs on players as a form of pain management to get them back on the field as quickly as possible. Players can obtain prescription drugs in high dosages and on pretty much on the spot, which in another context would be illegal. Plus the legal argument has always been a poor one IMO anyway. This country's marijuana laws are also indefensible and morally reprehensible for other reasons. And when did the NFL become a law enforcement agency? In the commonwealth of Virginia it's technically illegal for two adults, including married couples, to perform oral sex on each other. Is the NFL doing it's due diligence on all Redskins players to see if they are breaking this law?Summary?It is a strong word, which is why I chose to use it.
Here's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-nfls-absurd-marijuana-policy.html?_r=0
I am all for players smoking pot. I don't have any issue with it at all. Not sure I would call it medically indefensible or morally reprehensible to ban it though. I think the NFL is trying to stay in step with societal standards, and despite what I amy want, its still frowned up on most of the red states. As laws are changed, so too will the NFL's stance - but if you don't have anything better - its not morally reprehensible nor is it medically indefensible - there are lots of treatments that do not require marijuana.
Back to the topic. Medical marijuana has been proven as a treatment OPTION for many patients who suffer from the sort of ailments that NFL players, by the very nature of their job, suffer from on a daily basis.
So the summary is this. The NFL pushes, and enters into financially beneficial agreements with companies that promote, prescription drug use and what many would consider abuse. Most of these prescription drugs have acknowledged very serious negative side effects in both the short and long term. At the same time the NFL prohibits the use of marijuana which again has been medically proven to offer many of the pain management benefits of the prescription drugs with little to none of the known negative side effects. To the point that a player can be banned from the league for multiple failed testing at a threshold that is 4 times less than air traffic controllers whose jobs are a matter of public safety.
In my view, this is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible. You don't have to agree but that's my view and one that I will defend strongly.
Constructive response and about what I expected. Some say ignorance is bliss..... so carry on.@ VaTerp
shoecrew22
Footballguy
kip stabone
Footballguy
Once again I'll claim stupidity. My bad. Carry on.
rockaction
Footballguy
Your avatar is one of the best on these boards. Martin Starr in that awkward-### fake smile is awesome. He was probably the best actor on that show, as far as his character went.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
Yeah he looks out for the best interest of his players. It is not the best interest of his players to reinstate retro if he has no players that are suspended. Again he can achieve the same thing drug policy wise without retro reinstatement.
Captain Quinoa
Footballguy
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 5m
From @AlbertBreer & me: Retroactive suspensions has not been divisive for potential new policy. If deal approved, new standards would apply
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 2m
What’s it mean? Players suspended in 2014 league year get new standards. If approved, Welker & Scandrick play Sun. Gordon more complicated
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 36s
Every 2014 league year suspension will be reviewed, if deal is approved. Josh Gordan failed his drug test in 2013, so wait and see on him.
From @AlbertBreer & me: Retroactive suspensions has not been divisive for potential new policy. If deal approved, new standards would apply
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 2m
What’s it mean? Players suspended in 2014 league year get new standards. If approved, Welker & Scandrick play Sun. Gordon more complicated
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 36s
Every 2014 league year suspension will be reviewed, if deal is approved. Josh Gordan failed his drug test in 2013, so wait and see on him.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet · 37sEvery 2014 league year suspension will be reviewed, if deal is approved. Josh Gordan failed his drug test in 2013, so wait and see on him.
- ReplyReplied to 0 times
- RetweetRetweeted 12 times12
- FavoriteFavorited 11 times11
- More
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet · 2mWhat’s it mean? Players suspended in 2014 league year get new standards. If approved, Welker & Scandrick play Sun. Gordon more complicated
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
There are representatives from all 32 teams......If they can achieve the same thing without retro reinstatement why would all teams vote for reinstatement, if only a few would benefit...If I'm trying to win a championship why would I vote for something that doesn't benefit me but benefits my competitor?
shoecrew22
Footballguy
BECAUSE in the end most of these guys are friends. The NFLPA looks out for the players as individuals. Its the teams owner to look out for best interest of winning.
These guys are all in it together. Friends, brothers, competitors... and I dont know what level you played any sports but as a competitor I've always wanted to play, and beat, the best. Never wanted a football team to come to my field hoping their star player got hurt before the game. I wanted to stop him, for my team to shut them down. These guys are the same way but on a much larger scale... they want to beat the best.
LawFitz
Footballguy
My high school had a policy that if any senior student was caught ditching during the last six weeks of school, he would be barred from walking at the year-end graduation ceremony. Every year, several seniors were banned by this rule, as it wasn't much of a deterrent for a lot of them from skipping senioritis laden year-end classes.
My senior year our class valedictorian, a known partier, was caught at the local McD's about 15 minutes before the start of the school's lunch hour by a school administrator. Word got out that he'd been caught and everyone wondered how the school would handle not having the valedictorian at the ceremony and cutting out his speech. Neither happened. He got to walk and gave his speech, because the school decided to change it's policy and set the valedictorian and all other ditchers from that year free, allowing them to attend their graduation. True story.
Rules are often bent and/or broken for valedictorians.
#FreeJoshGordon
My senior year our class valedictorian, a known partier, was caught at the local McD's about 15 minutes before the start of the school's lunch hour by a school administrator. Word got out that he'd been caught and everyone wondered how the school would handle not having the valedictorian at the ceremony and cutting out his speech. Neither happened. He got to walk and gave his speech, because the school decided to change it's policy and set the valedictorian and all other ditchers from that year free, allowing them to attend their graduation. True story.
Rules are often bent and/or broken for valedictorians.
#FreeJoshGordon
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Hard as it obviously is for you to believe, there are probably many who view the NFLPA as the "team" in this context and would find it in bad taste to put their own short-term interests ahead of somebody else's employment status.
shoecrew22
Footballguy
Your logic is flawed. If they let anyone back in they open the flood gates. Them simply saying 2014 season vs 2014 calander year doesnt change much.
omally
Footballguy
I don't agree. I think the possible new rule should apply to all suspended in 2014. Gordon was suspended in 2014. I don't have him on any of my teams, but I think that is how they should implement it if something passes making suspended players in 2014 eligible to be reinstated.
bulger2holt
Footballguy
From the Plain Dealer:
Another source said that if the NFL and NFLPA allow Gordon, Welker and others who were suspended in 2014 to have their suspensions altered, others who have been banned since the new collective bargaining agreement went into effect in 2011 will be banging on the NFL's door.
"It opens up a whole can of worms for players who have been impacted by the policy,'' said one source. "They would be better off not letting anyone back in.''
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The difference is, other players from 2013 would have already served their suspensions while clearly Gordon has only missed one game. You can't undo the games missed from people that have already served suspensions. I think no matter what they do, players that would have passed drug tests at any point in the current CBA will have a legit gripe to get paid for the games they were suspended. As others have already said, no matter where the line in the sand is drawn in the past, someone will always be on the other side of the line.
