What's new
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 (12 Viewers)

iamkoza said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
steelwind said:
"Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfino

· 7m

For Gordon to get say six games, the union would have to agree and he'd have to agree not to sue even tho legal under new policy."
Click to expand...
How many predictions has that guy made since Gordon was suspended?

How many of them have been right?
Click to expand...
dont know, can you tell us :) he seems like a wacko
Click to expand...
I was looking at his twitter feed a bit yesterday and got the feeling that he was aligned with the fieldandcourt.com guy's position from the beginning. And the fieldandcourt guy has always been wrong about everything.

 
steelwind said:
Following up on Salfino's tweet below, I know for a fact that Gordon will sue since he will have a solid ground to stand on based on the new policies. No way he agrees to be suspended 6 games without pay when he knows the court Judge will give him an injunction right away to start earning his salary.

"Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfino· 7m

For Gordon to get say six games, the union would have to agree and he'd have to agree not to sue even tho legal under new policy."
Click to expand...
Try to think, without bias, for just a second. IF this report is true, for Gordon to get ANY of his suspension revoked, he'd have to agree NOT TO SUE! But you think he'd agree not to sue, in order to get some of his suspension waived, then turn around & sue, AND you think a judge will HAVE to grant him an injuction despite the fact that he agreed not to sue in exchange for lessening his suspension? Yeah, that seems likely. ;-)
 
I wonder if there are any other players with infractions (affected by this discussion) which occurred in 2013 but with penalties levied in 2014. Could Gordon be the only one?

On the one hand the Union will step up for Gordon. And (as someone pointed out further up) the Browns' rep will be voting on this and he will be demanding Gordon back. And it will seem fundamentally unfair not only to Gordon but also to the Browns that Welker and others get to play right away while Gordon will have to wait. On the other hand the NFL has a point about the technicality of negotiations only affecting the current league year. So I could see how the league could try to split the baby by holding its principle and negotiating down the suspension to 8, 6, 4, or 2 games.

But arguing that point, that Gordon is technically under the old rule while at the same time conceding that the old rule was baseless, senseless and even arbitrary, and arguing for that out loud and holding up a major agreement on an important issue like HGH, seems almost impossible. Think about actually enunciating that to a group of grown men, brass knuckle labor negotiators - I can't imagine that holding sway.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tribecalledjeff said:
I don't see how it would be 8 games. It seems like players would either have their suspensions overturned or they won't. What, are they just going to cut them all in half?
Click to expand...
Yes, the mechanics of that seem a bit complicated.

I don't think they're going to have a special Josh Gordon Provision that specifies Gordon's punishment. I suspect they're going to fit Gordon's situation into a broader provision of the new agreement.

I suppose it's possible that the new policy would include an 8-game suspension for players in stage three who test higher than 15 mg/dl (or whatever the units are), but that seems very unlikely.

It's also possible that the new policy would include an 8-game suspension for players in stage three who test higher than 50 mg/dl, but that the amnesty provision would affect only the punishment, not the question of whether there was a violation. That also seems a bit unlikely...

Maybe it will say something like any player who violated the policy in 2014 will have his case reevaluated under the new policy (both on the question of violation and punishment), while any player who violated the policy in 2013 but who is serving his suspension in 2014 will have his suspension reduced by half if his 2013 violation would not have been a violation in 2014.

I guess there are a bunch of possibilities, but they all seem a bit convoluted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
tribecalledjeff said:
I don't see how it would be 8 games. It seems like players would either have their suspensions overturned or they won't. What, are they just going to cut them all in half?
Click to expand...
Yes, the mechanics of that seem a bit complicated.

I don't think they're going to have a special Josh Gordon Provision that specifies Gordon's punishment. I suspect they're going to fit Gordon's situation into a broader provision of the new agreement.

I suppose it's possible that the new policy would include an 8-game suspension for players in stage three who test higher than 15 mg/dl (or whatever the units are), but that seems very unlikely.

It's also possible that the new policy would include an 8-game suspension for players in stage three who test higher than 50 mg/dl, but that the amnesty provision would affect only the punishment, not the question of whether there was a violation. That also seems a bit unlikely...

Maybe it will say something like any player who violated the policy in 2014 will have his case reevaluated under the new policy (both on the question of violation and punishment), but any player who violated the policy in 2013 but who is serving his suspension in 2014 will have his suspension reduced by half if his 2013 violation would not have been a violation in 2014.

I guess there are a bunch of possibilities, but they all seem a bit convoluted.
Click to expand...
Any player serving a suspension under old rules would receive amnesty?

My thinking has always been if the NFL could get HGH testing, that letting Gordon fly wouldn't really be a sticking point for them, but the NFLPA would fight for him (that's their job).

NFL's priority is to get HGH testing. Gordon to them, is small potatoes.

 
massraider said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
tribecalledjeff said:
I don't see how it would be 8 games. It seems like players would either have their suspensions overturned or they won't. What, are they just going to cut them all in half?
Click to expand...
Yes, the mechanics of that seem a bit complicated.

I don't think they're going to have a special Josh Gordon Provision that specifies Gordon's punishment. I suspect they're going to fit Gordon's situation into a broader provision of the new agreement.

I suppose it's possible that the new policy would include an 8-game suspension for players in stage three who test higher than 15 mg/dl (or whatever the units are), but that seems very unlikely.

It's also possible that the new policy would include an 8-game suspension for players in stage three who test higher than 50 mg/dl, but that the amnesty provision would affect only the punishment, not the question of whether there was a violation. That also seems a bit unlikely...

Maybe it will say something like any player who violated the policy in 2014 will have his case reevaluated under the new policy (both on the question of violation and punishment), but any player who violated the policy in 2013 but who is serving his suspension in 2014 will have his suspension reduced by half if his 2013 violation would not have been a violation in 2014.

I guess there are a bunch of possibilities, but they all seem a bit convoluted.
Click to expand...
Any player serving a suspension under old rules would receive amnesty?
Click to expand...
That wouldn't result in an eight-game suspension. That would result in immediate reinstatement.

 
Surprisingly Jim Brown's entire pregame show so far has been about Ray Rice. Nary a word about Josh Gordon's freedom.

 
I believe in the end it will work out. If he gets reinstated but have to serve 6+ week of suspension, would he have a case to bring to court? I believe so.

-He had to serve a whole year because he failed a drug test that has an absurdly low threshold tolerance and he barely failed it by one.. Meanwhile Ray Rice is serving 2 game suspension for violently beating his wife (with alleged proof that the commissioner had seen the video and still gave him only two weeks)

-He should not be serving time for a punishment that is not legal to be enforced anymore. If Goodell was Lincoln would he do something like this? "I hereby proclaim that starting today, there will be no more slave ownership. Does not apply to current African serving their time as slaves"

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
steelwind said:
"Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfino

· 7m

For Gordon to get say six games, the union would have to agree and he'd have to agree not to sue even tho legal under new policy."
Click to expand...
How many predictions has that guy made since Gordon was suspended?

How many of them have been right?
Click to expand...
Salfino is a numbers/stat guy over at Yahoo! I read him all the time. I have no idea how he would have anything resembling an inside source in the league (his type of journalism wouldn't lead one to believe he does).

If his Twitter handle corresponds correctly to his name (and it's not an Adam Schefter thing) then that's what you've got.

 
NFL to PA, "we want HGH testing, but we will let you find ways around the testing".

We don't want our star players getting caught and ruin the product on the field.

 
If I was a Gordon hater or the Hall Montior type, I would be PISSED Gordon even had a chance to play. After being up so high, laughing at my leaguemates because they lost a WR1, I would now be crapping my pants. I would probably be trying to find ANYTHING to argue about since I wouldn't be able to argue about Gordon playing anymore. I would know my days were numbered. Only a few more days where I could still say, without someone trying to slap a straight jacket on me, "He is suspended for the year." That's if I hated Gordon... Life would suck. All that energy spent on hating. Damn. I would have to channel it over to the TRich thread.

I would probably write a Haiku. Like this one:

There is still some hope.

Maybe they won't free Gordon.

Then I will feel proud.

If he received a reduction, I would post this one:

The NFL sucks.

They don't know what they have done.

He will mess up soon.

If I posted any of these:

:tfp:

or these

:lmao:

I would probably delete them and any other post where I swore up and down Gordon wouldn't play EVER again let alone this season.

That's what I would do if I was a Gordon hater and Gordon was reinstated.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
tribecalledjeff said:
I don't see how it would be 8 games. It seems like players would either have their suspensions overturned or they won't. What, are they just going to cut them all in half?
Click to expand...
Yes, the mechanics of that seem a bit complicated.

I don't think they're going to have a special Josh Gordon Provision that specifies Gordon's punishment. I suspect they're going to fit Gordon's situation into a broader provision of the new agreement.

I suppose it's possible that the new policy would include an 8-game suspension for players in stage three who test higher than 15 mg/dl (or whatever the units are), but that seems very unlikely.

It's also possible that the new policy would include an 8-game suspension for players in stage three who test higher than 50 mg/dl, but that the amnesty provision would affect only the punishment, not the question of whether there was a violation. That also seems a bit unlikely...

Maybe it will say something like any player who violated the policy in 2014 will have his case reevaluated under the new policy (both on the question of violation and punishment), while any player who violated the policy in 2013 but who is serving his suspension in 2014 will have his suspension reduced by half if his 2013 violation would not have been a violation in 2014.

I guess there are a bunch of possibilities, but they all seem a bit convoluted.
Click to expand...
They will craft the agreement to the desired result...That said, after the Rice thing, does the NFL want to continue to appear arbitrary and capricious? Looking at it this way, I think the NFL lets him play. It's just one guy to the NFL, but potentially 1/32 of the player reps. I think they will just let it go, and that they may have floated the 6-10 games thing out to the press as a tactic to put pressure on same other concession from the NFLPA in exchange for dropping the silly half-### suspension idea

 
mrbigg said:
I believe in the end it will work out. If he gets reinstated but have to serve 6+ week of suspension, would he have a case to bring to court? I believe so.

-He had to serve a whole year because he failed a drug test that has an absurdly low threshold tolerance and he barely failed it by one.. Meanwhile Ray Rice is serving 2 game suspension for violently beating his wife (with alleged proof that the commissioner had seen the video and still gave him only two weeks)

-He should not be serving time for a punishment that is not legal to be enforced anymore. If Goodell was Lincoln would he do something like this? "I hereby proclaim that starting today, there will be no more slave ownership. Does not apply to current African serving their time as slaves"
Click to expand...
You should be a lawyer.

 
Haven't been in here all day...

Sorry for being lazy but is the latest rumor that Gordon gets back in but with 6-8 game suspension tacked on?

 
NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reports the NFLPA has scheduled a Friday afternoon vote on a new drug policy.
Per Rapsheet, players currently serving suspensions for positive amphetamine tests — such as Wes Welker, Orlando Scandrick and Dion Jordan — would be immediately reinstated. It's unclear if that would take effect for Week 2 or Week 3, but it's likely Week 2. Josh Gordon's situation is more complicated. It's believed he would still be banned somewhere in the 6-10 game range, but he would be back in 2014.
 
Bayhawks said:
I Am the Stig said:
bolzano said:
Rick James said:
bolzano said:
The Gordon case remains tricky as his failed test took place before new league year, which is when grandfathering in new rules would begin
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/510145906659061760

Again, the language in the agreement is key- WIll the new marijuana policy be applied to all players suspended in 2014 (league year), or will it only apply to players who tested positive during the current year? If it's the former, then Gordon will be reinstated immediately. If it's the latter, then we might be screwed.
Click to expand...
I don't know...why go through all the negotiations and back-and-forth only to have this still be an issue? It just seems arbitrary.
Click to expand...
I agree that the time of positive test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it's not fair that Gordon remains suspended while, say, Welker is immediately reinstated. However, amnestying players who failed tests in 2013 might open up a can of worms that the NFL doesn't want to deal with, e.g., some players have already served their suspensions in full and might want compensation, etc.
Click to expand...
It isn't a can of worms. Anyone who is currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists they should be "set free". If the rule changes the punishment currently being served must be adjusted.This isn't about retroactively lifting suspensions, it is about looking at players currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists.

The can of worms is the lawsuits the league opens themselves up to over lost wages for upholding a punishment that is no longer valid.

It is more than just Gordon or Welker playing, it is about the income they are losing and they will sue to get paid.
Click to expand...
Okay. Then why did those people who were in prison for violating prohibition not immediately freed when it ended? Because they were in prison for breaking a law. Just because the law changed doesn't mean they didn't break it.Gordon broke a rule. He was punished. If the rule changed AFTERWARDS, Marty McFly didn't pull up in his Delorean and go back in time so Gordon never smoked the dope. He still broke the rule that was in place at that time.

If they didn't want to lose the income, they shouldn't have smoked up or taken Molly/amphetamines/adderal, whatever he took.
Click to expand...
It isn't illegal to offer retroactive ameliorative relief in the US, generally those convicted would seek a pardon if the Law changed in their favor. While such a relief would not be guaranteed it isn't impossible and in fact, the US is one if the few Nations that doesn't offer guaranteed retroactive ameliorative relief of overturned laws in the world.Just Free Josh Gordon already, there is no retroactive or legal can of worms to do so.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/02/no-relief-convicted

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm still trying not to get too excited/optimistic about him being reinstated this season, but I'm thoroughly enjoying the people who don't own him anywhere losing their **** over it.

 
Those sweet sweet non-Gordon owning tears. Delicious.

But in all seriousness, I actually used a draft pick on Gordon. It was the last pick in my draft, but there was speculation he could get reduced suspension for a long time, and that gave him value. It's not like he is some unknown who exploded onto the scene that nobody could possibly have guessed, he is a highly talented player.

That being said, I feel REALLY bad for anyone who drafted him hoping for a reduced suspension, released him when the appeal was denied, and then lost him in free agency.

 
On the other hand, I'm kind of enjoying seeing the Gordon owners getting booted from my leagues or drifting towards the cellar and whining about how he should be freed. I'm a draft n go only type of player though.

 
Ryan Swope said:
Those sweet sweet non-Gordon owning tears. Delicious.

But in all seriousness, I actually used a draft pick on Gordon. It was the last pick in my draft, but there was speculation he could get reduced suspension for a long time, and that gave him value. It's not like he is some unknown who exploded onto the scene that nobody could possibly have guessed, he is a highly talented player.

That being said, I feel REALLY bad for anyone who drafted him hoping for a reduced suspension, released him when the appeal was denied, and then lost him in free agency.
Click to expand...
He was going in the 7th to 10th in most of my leagues. He hasn't been dropped in any of the IBL leagues (my only leagues with FA moves). Of course I'm talking about leagues with FBG caliber competition in those leagues.

 
So from what I hear and read Gordon would be suspended anywhere from 6-10 games. I assume that is games and not weeks ?? SO if its a 8 game ban he would be back week 10 because week 4 is a bye week?

 
I picked up Gordon for free off WW in 2 leagues on sept 4th...another guy had drafted him but dropped him once his appeal was denied.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

greenmountaingoat
Ainias Smith-WR- Draft eligible Texas A&M
Replies
9
Views
284
Drunken Cowboy
D
JohnnyU
WR Trey Palmer, TB
Replies
39
Views
2K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
creepythinman
True League Winners - Upgrading the Playoff Roster
Replies
25
Views
1K
creepythinman
creepythinman

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 13 (members: 0, guests: 13)
Top