Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

I ended up trading Ben Tate for Ray Rice right before they updated Tate's expected return date earlier in the week. Then, right as the news about Rice's indefinite suspension broke I was able to squeeze out a deal for Gordon. Yesterday, before news of Gordon's expected 10 game suspension began to spread I was able to trade him for AP straight up. Finally, late last night, before the AP owner in my league could catch on, I was able snag Ben Tate, optimistic that he'd be back after the bye. Needless to say, that owner is super salty.

I did pretty much the exact same thing, except I cut out all the middlemen by just holding onto Tate the whole time and taking a nap.

  • Like 2
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.

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

If I'm reading this correctly, the NFL is grandfathering in all players under the new discipline protocols. However, they are not retroactively applying the new marijuana thresholds, not even for players popped in the current league year.

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

If I'm reading this correctly, the NFL is grandfathering in all players under the new discipline protocols. However, they are not retroactively applying the new marijuana thresholds, not even for players popped in the current league year.

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

If Pelissero's understanding of the terms is correct, then the NFLPA yielded its demand to have the higher marijuana threshold applied retroactively. I say that because Jay Feely stated yesterday that retroactively applying the new threshold was something the union was fighting hard for, and moreover, it's fundamentally fair. In fact, I'm wondering if Gordon is the only player currently suspended for testing at THC levels between 15-35 ng/ml. If so, then it seems Gordon was one of the NFLPA's concessions to the NFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

If I'm reading this correctly, the NFL is grandfathering in all players under the new discipline protocols. However, they are not retroactively applying the new marijuana thresholds, not even for players popped in the current league year.

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

If Pelissero's understanding of the terms is correct, then the NFLPA yielded its demand to have the higher marijuana threshold applied retroactively. I say that because Jay Feely stated yesterday that retroactively applying the new threshold was something the union was fighting hard for, and moreover, it's fundamentally fair. In fact, I'm wondering if Gordon is the only player currently suspended for testing at THC levels between 15-35 ng/ml. If so, then it seems Gordon was one of the NFLPA's concessions to the NFL.

If they are paying any attention to this thread at all the powers that be know this is not acceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

If I'm reading this correctly, the NFL is grandfathering in all players under the new discipline protocols. However, they are not retroactively applying the new marijuana thresholds, not even for players popped in the current league year.

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

If Pelissero's understanding of the terms is correct, then the NFLPA yielded its demand to have the higher marijuana threshold applied retroactively. I say that because Jay Feely stated yesterday that retroactively applying the new threshold was something the union was fighting hard for, and moreover, it's fundamentally fair. In fact, I'm wondering if Gordon is the only player currently suspended for testing at THC levels between 15-35 ng/ml. If so, then it seems Gordon was one of the NFLPA's concessions to the NFL.

Makes some sense everything considered and would be literally shocking if you ask me. The NFL gains nothing, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

If I'm reading this correctly, the NFL is grandfathering in all players under the new discipline protocols. However, they are not retroactively applying the new marijuana thresholds, not even for players popped in the current league year.

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

If Pelissero's understanding of the terms is correct, then the NFLPA yielded its demand to have the higher marijuana threshold applied retroactively. I say that because Jay Feely stated yesterday that retroactively applying the new threshold was something the union was fighting hard for, and moreover, it's fundamentally fair. In fact, I'm wondering if Gordon is the only player currently suspended for testing at THC levels between 15-35 ng/ml. If so, then it seems Gordon was one of the NFLPA's concessions to the NFL.

Makes some sense everything considered and would be literally shocking if you ask me. The NFL gains nothing, IMO.

Did you mean to type "The NFLPA gains nothing?"

If not, I don't get what you mean. The NFL's whole goal in these negotiations was to get HGH testing. If the two sides agree to that, they gain everything that they wanted. They (despite what some/many/all Gordon-ites want to believe) don't care about whether Josh Gordon plays this year or not. In fact, due to the fact that he broke the rules, they'd probably rather he didn't play. But they definitely aren't going out of their way to MAKE SURE he plays. So, if his suspension isn't overturned, OR isn't reduced as much as some people would like, but the NFL gains HGH testing, how does "The NFL gains nothing?"

Edited by Bayhawks
Link to post
Share on other sites

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

If I'm reading this correctly, the NFL is grandfathering in all players under the new discipline protocols. However, they are not retroactively applying the new marijuana thresholds, not even for players popped in the current league year.

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

If Pelissero's understanding of the terms is correct, then the NFLPA yielded its demand to have the higher marijuana threshold applied retroactively. I say that because Jay Feely stated yesterday that retroactively applying the new threshold was something the union was fighting hard for, and moreover, it's fundamentally fair. In fact, I'm wondering if Gordon is the only player currently suspended for testing at THC levels between 15-35 ng/ml. If so, then it seems Gordon was one of the NFLPA's concessions to the NFL.

Makes some sense everything considered and would be literally shocking if you ask me. The NFL gains nothing, IMO.

Did you mean to type "The NFLPA gains nothing?"

If not, I don't get what you mean. The NFL's whole goal in these negotiations was to get HGH testing. If the two sides agree to that, they gain everything that they wanted. They (despite what some/many/all Gordon-ites want to believe) don't care about whether Josh Gordon plays this year or not. In fact, due to the fact that he broke the rules, they'd probably rather he didn't play. But they definitely aren't going out of their way to MAKE SURE he plays. So, if his suspension isn't overturned, OR isn't reduced as much as some people would like, but the NFL gains HGH testing, how does "The NFL gains nothing?"

The "Gordonites" contend that according to the new rules, Gordon didn't break the rules and should be set free. This belief would apply to any player it applies to, but since this is after all a Josh Gordon thread the player of concern here is in fact Josh Gordon.

When did this turn into a "Gordonites" thing? Exactly what or who should we be talking about in a Josh Gordon thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

If I'm reading this correctly, the NFL is grandfathering in all players under the new discipline protocols. However, they are not retroactively applying the new marijuana thresholds, not even for players popped in the current league year.

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

If Pelissero's understanding of the terms is correct, then the NFLPA yielded its demand to have the higher marijuana threshold applied retroactively. I say that because Jay Feely stated yesterday that retroactively applying the new threshold was something the union was fighting hard for, and moreover, it's fundamentally fair. In fact, I'm wondering if Gordon is the only player currently suspended for testing at THC levels between 15-35 ng/ml. If so, then it seems Gordon was one of the NFLPA's concessions to the NFL.

Makes some sense everything considered and would be literally shocking if you ask me. The NFL gains nothing, IMO.

Did you mean to type "The NFLPA gains nothing?"

If not, I don't get what you mean. The NFL's whole goal in these negotiations was to get HGH testing. If the two sides agree to that, they gain everything that they wanted. They (despite what some/many/all Gordon-ites want to believe) don't care about whether Josh Gordon plays this year or not. In fact, due to the fact that he broke the rules, they'd probably rather he didn't play. But they definitely aren't going out of their way to MAKE SURE he plays. So, if his suspension isn't overturned, OR isn't reduced as much as some people would like, but the NFL gains HGH testing, how does "The NFL gains nothing?"

The "Gordonites" contend that according to the new rules, Gordon didn't break the rules and should be set free. This belief would apply to any player it applies to, but since this is after all a Josh Gordon thread the player of concern here is in fact Josh Gordon.

When did this turn into a "Gordonites" thing? Exactly what or who should we be talking about in a Josh Gordon thread?

The "Gordonites" are wrong in that contention. He did break the rules, at the time, and according to some reports, a new policy will be written in such a way that says he still broke the rules but is subject to a different suspension length. If that's the case, it doesn't matter how much they want Gordon to get no suspension, he's going to .

When I refer to Gordonites, I'm not talking about people discussing Gordon, I'm referring to the people who make any excuse for him that they can dream up: "weed's not that bad," "the NFL's levels are too low," "Gordon should sue (even though he has no legal grounds to do so," "the NFL wants Gordon to play," "Rice getting 2 games is good for Gordon, b/c the NFL needs to show that weed isn't worse than domestic abuse," "Rice getting an indefinite suspension is good for Gordon, b/c the NFL can go easy on him now," "Gordon should get no suspension, b/c the new rules (which weren't in place when he failed) would not be a fail, even though the new policy is reportedly written in such a way that says he SHOULD be suspended."

If you are rational and logical when discussing Gordon, and are willing to accept facts, even if they don't look good for Gordon, I don't view you as a "Gordon-ite." If you refuse to accept that you might not get what you want, with regards to Gordon, and are willing to ignore facts/logic/reality in order to rationalize your belief that Gordon is/will/should get off, that's who I mean when I say "Gordon-ite." Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rational Gordon owner who thinks 10 games is happening no matter what...

"weed's not that bad," "the NFL's levels are too low,"

Both of these are true. Doesn't change whats happening to him, but they are true.

I've pretty much had come to terms the same way. It isn't fair, but neither is life. It doesn't make sense, but neither do any of these other suspensions because it's the NFL. It is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

If I'm reading this correctly, the NFL is grandfathering in all players under the new discipline protocols. However, they are not retroactively applying the new marijuana thresholds, not even for players popped in the current league year.

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

If Pelissero's understanding of the terms is correct, then the NFLPA yielded its demand to have the higher marijuana threshold applied retroactively. I say that because Jay Feely stated yesterday that retroactively applying the new threshold was something the union was fighting hard for, and moreover, it's fundamentally fair. In fact, I'm wondering if Gordon is the only player currently suspended for testing at THC levels between 15-35 ng/ml. If so, then it seems Gordon was one of the NFLPA's concessions to the NFL.

Makes some sense everything considered and would be literally shocking if you ask me. The NFL gains nothing, IMO.

Did you mean to type "The NFLPA gains nothing?"

If not, I don't get what you mean. The NFL's whole goal in these negotiations was to get HGH testing. If the two sides agree to that, they gain everything that they wanted. They (despite what some/many/all Gordon-ites want to believe) don't care about whether Josh Gordon plays this year or not. In fact, due to the fact that he broke the rules, they'd probably rather he didn't play. But they definitely aren't going out of their way to MAKE SURE he plays. So, if his suspension isn't overturned, OR isn't reduced as much as some people would like, but the NFL gains HGH testing, how does "The NFL gains nothing?"

The "Gordonites" contend that according to the new rules, Gordon didn't break the rules and should be set free. This belief would apply to any player it applies to, but since this is after all a Josh Gordon thread the player of concern here is in fact Josh Gordon.

When did this turn into a "Gordonites" thing? Exactly what or who should we be talking about in a Josh Gordon thread?

The "Gordonites" are wrong in that contention. He did break the rules, at the time, and according to some reports, a new policy will be written in such a way that says he still broke the rules but is subject to a different suspension length. If that's the case, it doesn't matter how much they want Gordon to get no suspension, he's going to .

When I refer to Gordonites, I'm not talking about people discussing Gordon, I'm referring to the people who make any excuse for him that they can dream up: "weed's not that bad," "the NFL's levels are too low," "Gordon should sue (even though he has no legal grounds to do so," "the NFL wants Gordon to play," "Rice getting 2 games is good for Gordon, b/c the NFL needs to show that weed isn't worse than domestic abuse," "Rice getting an indefinite suspension is good for Gordon, b/c the NFL can go easy on him now," "Gordon should get no suspension, b/c the new rules (which weren't in place when he failed) would not be a fail, even though the new policy is reportedly written in such a way that says he SHOULD be suspended."

If you are rational and logical when discussing Gordon, and are willing to accept facts, even if they don't look good for Gordon, I don't view you as a "Gordon-ite." If you refuse to accept that you might not get what you want, with regards to Gordon, and are willing to ignore facts/logic/reality in order to rationalize your belief that Gordon is/will/should get off, that's who I mean when I say "Gordon-ite." Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

For somebody claining to be logical and rational you are yourself refusing to accept facts

"weed's not that bad"

Fact: weed is being legalized in more and more states and most Americans support legalization

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

"the NFL's levels are too low,"

Fact; Based on NFL levels you could pass a drug test to be an Air Traffic controller, but you can't step on a football field.

Gordon should sue (even though he has no legal grounds to do so,"

Right now, reports say we are looking at a result is that he gets the stage 3/4 suspension under the new agreement based on test taken in the previous "league year."

The facts is that this is a fluid situation. There is no agreement in place. Despite the sides being close, we may not get one. When we get one, we don't know what that agreement will say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if his failed test was on March 6th (not certain but I read that on PFT) and the new deal applies retroactively only to March 11th then why do people think he will only get 10 games? Isn't it possible he is still out for the year?

If I'm reading this correctly, the NFL is grandfathering in all players under the new discipline protocols. However, they are not retroactively applying the new marijuana thresholds, not even for players popped in the current league year.

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

If Pelissero's understanding of the terms is correct, then the NFLPA yielded its demand to have the higher marijuana threshold applied retroactively. I say that because Jay Feely stated yesterday that retroactively applying the new threshold was something the union was fighting hard for, and moreover, it's fundamentally fair. In fact, I'm wondering if Gordon is the only player currently suspended for testing at THC levels between 15-35 ng/ml. If so, then it seems Gordon was one of the NFLPA's concessions to the NFL.

Makes some sense everything considered and would be literally shocking if you ask me. The NFL gains nothing, IMO.

Did you mean to type "The NFLPA gains nothing?"

If not, I don't get what you mean. The NFL's whole goal in these negotiations was to get HGH testing. If the two sides agree to that, they gain everything that they wanted. They (despite what some/many/all Gordon-ites want to believe) don't care about whether Josh Gordon plays this year or not. In fact, due to the fact that he broke the rules, they'd probably rather he didn't play. But they definitely aren't going out of their way to MAKE SURE he plays. So, if his suspension isn't overturned, OR isn't reduced as much as some people would like, but the NFL gains HGH testing, how does "The NFL gains nothing?"

The "Gordonites" contend that according to the new rules, Gordon didn't break the rules and should be set free. This belief would apply to any player it applies to, but since this is after all a Josh Gordon thread the player of concern here is in fact Josh Gordon.

When did this turn into a "Gordonites" thing? Exactly what or who should we be talking about in a Josh Gordon thread?

The "Gordonites" are wrong in that contention. He did break the rules, at the time, and according to some reports, a new policy will be written in such a way that says he still broke the rules but is subject to a different suspension length. If that's the case, it doesn't matter how much they want Gordon to get no suspension, he's going to .

When I refer to Gordonites, I'm not talking about people discussing Gordon, I'm referring to the people who make any excuse for him that they can dream up: "weed's not that bad," "the NFL's levels are too low," "Gordon should sue (even though he has no legal grounds to do so," "the NFL wants Gordon to play," "Rice getting 2 games is good for Gordon, b/c the NFL needs to show that weed isn't worse than domestic abuse," "Rice getting an indefinite suspension is good for Gordon, b/c the NFL can go easy on him now," "Gordon should get no suspension, b/c the new rules (which weren't in place when he failed) would not be a fail, even though the new policy is reportedly written in such a way that says he SHOULD be suspended."

If you are rational and logical when discussing Gordon, and are willing to accept facts, even if they don't look good for Gordon, I don't view you as a "Gordon-ite." If you refuse to accept that you might not get what you want, with regards to Gordon, and are willing to ignore facts/logic/reality in order to rationalize your belief that Gordon is/will/should get off, that's who I mean when I say "Gordon-ite." Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

For somebody claining to be logical and rational you are yourself refusing to accept facts

"weed's not that bad"

Fact: weed is being legalized in more and more states and most Americans support legalization

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

"the NFL's levels are too low,"

Fact; Based on NFL levels you could pass a drug test to be an Air Traffic controller, but you can't step on a football field.

Gordon should sue (even though he has no legal grounds to do so,"

Right now, reports say we are looking at a result is that he gets the stage 3/4 suspension under the new agreement based on test taken in the previous "league year."

The facts is that this is a fluid situation. There is no agreement in place. Despite the sides being close, we may not get one. When we get one, we don't know what that agreement will say.

I just wanted to quote

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flash Gordon (@JOSH_GORDONXII)

9/14/14, 9:47 AM

Good morning, let's get in shape.. #6games #probowl ?

Download the official Twitter app here

Sent from my iPhone

Like it.

https://twitter.com/JOSH_GORDONXII

He also posted "TMT" - what does that mean? Too much time?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes some sense everything considered and would be literally shocking if you ask me. The NFL gains nothing, IMO.

Did you mean to type "The NFLPA gains nothing?"

If not, I don't get what you mean. The NFL's whole goal in these negotiations was to get HGH testing. If the two sides agree to that, they gain everything that they wanted. They (despite what some/many/all Gordon-ites want to believe) don't care about whether Josh Gordon plays this year or not. In fact, due to the fact that he broke the rules, they'd probably rather he didn't play. But they definitely aren't going out of their way to MAKE SURE he plays. So, if his suspension isn't overturned, OR isn't reduced as much as some people would like, but the NFL gains HGH testing, how does "The NFL gains nothing?"

Agreed. The union wanted the higher marijuana threshold to apply retroactively, which would have led to Gordon's suspension being lifted. However, the NFL has an incentive to not apply the new policy in this manner, as it's been reported that doing so might lead to grievances filed by players who were disciplined in previous seasons.

The league can expect a backlash over the Gordon re-instatement "deal.'' Others who tested positive in 2013 will want revisions sources say

Have talked to several sources who would want suspensions dating back to new CBA in 2011 revised. One player with a 20 ng/ml marijuana test

https://twitter.com/MaryKayCabot

Edited by bolzano
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they revise the policy then say everyone is G2G if their case fits the revisions EXCEPT Josh Gordon when if this policy had been in place he wouldn't have tested positive AT ALL. He should really rethink that suing the NFL thing. They are all sorts of ####ed up right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they revise the policy then say everyone is G2G if their case fits the revisions EXCEPT Josh Gordon when if this policy had been in place he wouldn't have tested positive AT ALL. He should really rethink that suing the NFL thing. They are all sorts of ####ed up right now.

No consistency at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New spin floating around:

MJ is now isolated on its own suspension track so the codeine violation should not apply as one of the "4 violations" (or is it 3) MJ is now treated separately. Look at the wording. There should be a different explanation for the 10 games. Technically 2 substance abuse and 2 MJ violations make 4, but they would only lead to punishment for 4 game check violations under the new punishment language, not any suspensions at all. I am not saying he wont get 10 games, but I am figuring out how they will justify it unless they make a Gordon rule, because the explanation that the threshold was not backdated but the punishment is backdated doesn't hold water either under the new rules where MJ is an isolated suspension path. Credit Salfino for this argument.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/13/nfl-new-drug-policy-three-things/15571205/

"1. Marijuana won't be punished like other drugs"

So its possible to be in multiple stages of violations for MJ, Domestic abuse, Substance abuse, etc.

Edited by mnmplayer
Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't sound right mnmplayer. Look at the article you posted. Marijuana is not an isolated structure. The punishment for either MJ or another substance build on previous violations of either type. MJ has punishments which can differ from other substances, but they aren't completely unrelated. You are at the same step for both MJ and other substances. What differs is that if your next violation is MJ the punishment might be lighter than it is for other substances.

The path through to a 10 game suspension with the violations we know of for Gordon would be:

If player is in the program by testing positive for either marijuana (MJ) or other banned substances of abuse (O): - In the program for the college failed MJ tests.

Next violation relating to MJ 2 game fine

Next violation relating to O 4 game fine - whatever his first violation of Stage Two was. We don't know if it was the falling asleep in the drive through or some other failed test as there was not a suspension from it under the old policy either so it wasn't announced. But we know there was a violation before the codeine one. This was discussed in depth in here a few pages ago as we tried to figure out which violations applied to which parts of the old policy.

Player's last discipline was 2 game fine for MJ:

Next violation relating to MJ 4 game fine

Next violation relating to O 4 game fine

Player's last discipline was 4 game fine for MJ or O:

Next violation relating to MJ 4 game suspension

Next violation relating to O 4 game suspension, entry into Stage 3 for O - last violation was 4 game fine level for "Other" above, so the codeine would have triggered this one, 4 game suspension.

Player's last discipline was for 4 game suspension for MJ or O:

Next violation relating to MJ 10 game suspension, entry into Stage 3 - last violation was the 4 game suspension for Other above, so here's your failed MJ test and the 10 game suspension that everyone is reporting.

Next violation relating to O Banishment, can reinstatement after 1 year

Player's last discipline was for 10 game suspension for MJ:

Next violation relating to MJ Banishment, can reinstatement after 1 year

Link to post
Share on other sites

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation

Oooof. Please stop this. TIA.

why?, do you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't exist?

The new doosh term "optics"? Yes, yes I would love to bury my head and never have to hear that word used in that manner again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flash Gordon (@JOSH_GORDONXII)

9/14/14, 9:47 AM

Good morning, let's get in shape.. #6games #probowl ?

Download the official Twitter app here

Sent from my iPhone

Like it.

https://twitter.com/JOSH_GORDONXII

He also posted "TMT" - what does that mean? Too much time?

The Money Team...it's a Mayweather thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Word is he will be allowed back with the browns during his suspension whatever the actual suspension is

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/josh-gordon-1-year-suspension-with-browns-teammates-suspension-drug-tests-car-dealership-091514

A source told FOX Sports on Sunday that Gordon will be able to be around his teammates and coaches at the Browns' facility during his suspension. When his initial suspension was handed down last month, Gordon was officially barred from the building. But under the new policy, his status in the substance-abuse policy comes with access to club activities, save for the games, full practices and travel with the team.

According to Garafolo, people close to Gordon believe the added structure of the team could help keep him focused on football.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Word is he will be allowed back with the browns during his suspension whatever the actual suspension is

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/josh-gordon-1-year-suspension-with-browns-teammates-suspension-drug-tests-car-dealership-091514

A source told FOX Sports on Sunday that Gordon will be able to be around his teammates and coaches at the Browns' facility during his suspension. When his initial suspension was handed down last month, Gordon was officially barred from the building. But under the new policy, his status in the substance-abuse policy comes with access to club activities, save for the games, full practices and travel with the team.

According to Garafolo, people close to Gordon believe the added structure of the team could help keep him focused on football.

You would think that long ago they would have realized keeping someone with the team while suspended, especially for drugs, would be better than letting a player run with his "friends."

Link to post
Share on other sites

For somebody claining to be logical and rational you are yourself refusing to accept facts

"weed's not that bad"

Fact: weed is being legalized in more and more states and most Americans support legalization

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

"the NFL's levels are too low,"

Fact; Based on NFL levels you could pass a drug test to be an Air Traffic controller, but you can't step on a football field.

Gordon should sue (even though he has no legal grounds to do so,"

Right now, reports say we are looking at a result is that he gets the stage 3/4 suspension under the new agreement based on test taken in the previous "league year."

The facts is that this is a fluid situation. There is no agreement in place. Despite the sides being close, we may not get one. When we get one, we don't know what that agreement will say.

This is my point.

It doesn't matter if weed is being legalized; that fact is irrelevant to the topic at hand: Gordon's failed test, the NFL's substance abuse policy, and his resulting punishment. Adderall is legal, too, yet players get suspended for that. But Gordon-ites in this thread insist that this is a logical argument for why Gordon shouldn't have been suspended.

If the "optics" of the Rice/Gordon situation were so important (PR-wise) to the NFL, why didn't they give Rice a longer suspension initially? Why didn't they give Gordon a shorter suspension initially? Because what Gordon-ites insist is important, isn't (at least not important enough to #freejoshgordon.

Yes, the reports (unconfirmed, as of yet) that Gordon is going to have a 10-game suspension is based on the new policy, and negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA. Not based on the NFL's desire to see Gordon play, not based on his ridiculous, un-scientific argument that it was 2nd-hand smoke, not based on some incorrect interpretation of Ohio's legal code or the CBA, but on the wording of the new policy.

I agree with your last point, it is a fluid situation, but that doesn't mean that logic and reason won't govern the process. No one could have predicted that the NFL and NFLPA were going to re-negotiate their drug policy, in-season, but anyone who logically looked at the situation, without bias, could have predicted that Gordon was going to get a year suspension, that he was going to lose his appeal, that he had no legal grounds to sue (and win), and that the NFL wasn't going to "bend" their rules (because they want Gordon to play or because of the Rice situation).

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rational Gordon owner who thinks 10 games is happening no matter what...

"weed's not that bad," "the NFL's levels are too low,"

Both of these are true. Doesn't change whats happening to him, but they are true.

Exactly. In the context of Gordon's situation, the first part of this sentence is what's important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Gordon's DWI trial was rescheduled to November. Wondering if he will try to push it back further. Once resolved he could get another suspension. If he loses any more of the 6 games he has left this year he will lose a year accrued towards towards free agency.

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...