Ebaker5
Footballguy
Maybe you should check the Denver statutes. Employers can and are firing employees for off the job use of marijuana. Employees have pressed the issue and the EMPLOYER wins every time... DISMISSED
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 (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Matt Waldman
- Start date
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Soulfly3
Footballguy
look around you.:golfclap:
entertainment. laughter. conversation. comradery.
it is what it is.
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
Oh absolutely. Please, continue.look around you.:golfclap:
entertainment. laughter. conversation. comradery.
it is what it is.
Shawn said:
We sure live in one hell of a f$#ked up world where people get worked up over a suspension difference because they own Josh Gordon a fantasy league. You might want to put some perspective in your world and realize that it is just fantasy football, i.e. a game.
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
Oh. Well, in that case, perhaps the players might want to advocate for permissible drug use in the next round of collective bargaining so that they're, you know..not outdated and all.
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
one thing the NFL needs to change is not letting the players be around the team while they are suspended. They make a bad situation worse, these troubled guys need to be around the team for a support system.
They screw up suspend them, that's fine, but don't take them completely away from the one thing that could keep them on the right track.
They screw up suspend them, that's fine, but don't take them completely away from the one thing that could keep them on the right track.
GregR
Footballguy
Some people treat football like it's a matter of life and death.Shawn said:
We sure live in one hell of a f$#ked up world where people get worked up over a suspension difference because they own Josh Gordon a fantasy league. You might want to put some perspective in your world and realize that it is just fantasy football, i.e. a game.
I assure you, it's much more serious than that.
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
A lot of good being around a team did for Josh Gordon. He's gone through three iterations of teams, and that wasn't enough.
At some point, it's not the NFL's fault, it's not the NFLPA's fault, it's not the team's fault, it's not society's fault. At some point, the focus has to square on the individual, and he has to own that he has a problem, and he has to make it a point to do something about it. On his own.
Hasn't you proven what a clown you are in the last 150 pages??? Why continue? We get it, you are what you are
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
yes, it's 100% his fault, but don't you think he has better odds of turning things around if he's around the team and the thing he loves.
MAC_32
Footballguy
didn't work the first five times.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
az_prof
Footballguy
Lipstick. Meet a pig.look around you.:golfclap:
entertainment. laughter. conversation. comradery.
it is what it is.
Dismattle
Footballguy
So you cracked open a "cold one" but frown upon a joint? I guess ya know about maims/deaths from drinking
I know Gordon had an issue w that too, but it isn't viewed the same (to the NFL) which ironically is one of the worst situations 1) Drinkers who rarely drink, and then drive 2) The high tolerance drinkers goin for broke
It may be funny to see tables turned to a degree in the future ie. holding a "six-pack" is legal 12 pk or over and you risk jail (just kidding)
Oh and don't hate! Its too strong a word...
On the bright side, its obvious the NFL Commissioner was raised with a similar understanding ie. No clue what was in an Indians "peace pipe"..
However the Commish would probably drop his jaw if he read stuff about Purple drank esp in TX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_drank ex. In 2004, the University of Texas found that 8.3% of secondary school students in Texas had taken codeine syrup to get high.
Basically Im admitting that I too see a difference among different "choices" to consume..
p.s. Soulfly has suggested that Gordon would play eight games, and while the Season isn't over yet. Matter of fact, he hasn't missed a reg Season game just yet.
Im pretty sure its a done deal, but very little surprises everyone..
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
for marijuana issues, a lot. he's not hurting anyone around him. yes he's an idiot and i'm not a big fan of him or anything, but i think he should be put in the best possible position to overcome his issues.
"haven't"...typo...at least I have that excuse. What did you do? Typo 500 posts?
btw...yes you have
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
Evidently, no.
Look, the guy has a gazillion advantages none of us will ever dream of having, and he keeps pissing them all down the drain over and over and over and over again. No team, whether it is Baylor or Utah or the Browns, has amounted to a lick of influence in corralling his sheer stupidity. His odds are best at turning things around when he takes just a moment to reflect on what choices he is making and decides that he wants to change, gets professional help, treatment, and truly takes ownership of his life. This is not the NFL's fault here, and any suggestion otherwise is enabling and missing the point.
MAC_32
Footballguy
you didn't mention demaurice smith anywhere here, a mistake most are making here. If you have a problem with the cba then take it up with him and the nflpa.
MAC_32
Footballguy
you guys should take up group text.
False Start
Footballguy
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
Consider all the people in poverty, or those making minimum wage, or those in the middle class when making this point and listen to just how ridiculous this sounds. He IS in the best possible position to overcome his issues. He has been in the best possible position to overcome his issues. Most people would kill to be in his position to overcome their issues. Many of them, I believe, truly would use the blessings he has as inspiration to turn things around. He has spat on every opportunity given to him. It's time to give Josh Gordon some space and time to really think hard for once about the choices he makes because the resources being invested in him have been an utter waste, thus far.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Soulfly3
Footballguy
I am not sure why everyone (media and posters here) refers to the appeal as an "arbitration" presided over by an "independent arbitrator." If you read the Substance Abuse Policy it states the appeals process...
[SIZE=12pt]"B. Conduct of Appeals Before the Commissioner. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]1. Hearing. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Commissioner will designate a time and place for a hearing (either in person or by telephone), at which either he or his designee will preside. A player may be accompanied by counsel and present relevant evidence or testimony in support of his appeal. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]7. Commissioner Determination.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Within a reasonable period of time, following the hearing, the Commissioner will issue a written decision which will constitute a full, final, and complete disposition of the appeal and which will be binding on all parties."[/SIZE]
It would appear Henderson was Goodell's "designee" and that it was still ultimately Goodell's decision. I am not an expert on the policy, but I have read it a couple of times during this whole fiasco. So, anyone who thinks that a Court won't overturn the suspension because it was a heard by an independent arbitrator is wrong. That doesn't mean that there are not numerous other reasons the suspension would be affirmed, but I don't think that is one of them.
[SIZE=12pt]"B. Conduct of Appeals Before the Commissioner. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]1. Hearing. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Commissioner will designate a time and place for a hearing (either in person or by telephone), at which either he or his designee will preside. A player may be accompanied by counsel and present relevant evidence or testimony in support of his appeal. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]7. Commissioner Determination.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Within a reasonable period of time, following the hearing, the Commissioner will issue a written decision which will constitute a full, final, and complete disposition of the appeal and which will be binding on all parties."[/SIZE]
It would appear Henderson was Goodell's "designee" and that it was still ultimately Goodell's decision. I am not an expert on the policy, but I have read it a couple of times during this whole fiasco. So, anyone who thinks that a Court won't overturn the suspension because it was a heard by an independent arbitrator is wrong. That doesn't mean that there are not numerous other reasons the suspension would be affirmed, but I don't think that is one of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
i don't really disagree with your stance, in many ways i think you're right. i just think a 23 year old shouldn't really have a major support system taken away from him. But you're right, he's been given a lot of chances and pissed them away, so in the end it's on him. just sucks to see such a talent throw it all away and now it might get even worse for him.
I've been reading a bit on this issue in the last 24 hours, and it's not so clear cut.
On the one hand, judges don't review arbitrators' rulings on the merits. One the other hand, Henderson isn't really a neutral arbitrator: he was appointed by Goodell. On the third hand, that's the system that the NFLPA agreed to, and an agreement with that method of selecting an arbitrator is legally enforceable.
The trial judge in the Williams-StarCaps case did review the non-neutral arbitrator's decision on the merits (and did grant a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the suspension). And while some law professor types agreed with him on that issue, others did not. So it's a hard question. I don't know how the federal appellate courts have weighed in on the issue of how much deference a non-neutral arbitrator's decision should get when he was appointed in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement. The issue probably doesn't come up very often because in most contexts, a union would never agree to allow management to unilaterally pick the arbitrator.
Here's a pretty good article about these issues as they were raised in the StarCaps case, if anyone's interested.
Last edited by a moderator:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
False Start
Footballguy
Ketamine Dreams
Footballguy
Anyone holding yet for a couple days in redraft with Gordon's talk of a possible lawsuit?
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Yep, especially in deep leagues with nothing of note on the waiver wire.
For the record, I am pretty pessimistic on his chances of getting any kind of injunction - but risk/reward in most situations means no reason to cut bait immediately.
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
Sure. If it helps you sleep at night, that's fine.
Seems to me, however, that the bigger issue here isn't the merits of the policy, which are clearly debatable (this coming from an ardent supporter of marijuana legalization), but rather that we have an adult who gets all the hints, nudges, counsel, and resources you can possibly imagine to know he absolutely cannot under any circumstances be around a specific substance, knowing the catastrophic consequences that would result if he is tested positive (yet again) for said substance, but voluntarily chooses to go ahead and do it anyway. It is the mind-boggling stupidity of this choice over and over, time and time again that, in my mind, trumps any stupidity stemming from a league policy agreed upon by suits and players alike.
I think there is the potential for a disconnect between his trade value and where most sites are going to rank him. What I mean is that I think it is probably going to be easier to get a 1st (or whatever the appropriate price is for that range) because he is more volatile. That increased volatility is going to allow people to more easily create the narrative where he could significantly help their team.Josh Gordon dynasty value now?
A 2015 1st?
On FBG and a couple of other dynasty rankings, I see him ranked around rookie WR3 or WR4. So that could be turned into around a mid-round first pick IMO.
Thoughts from anyone who rather talk value than legal mumbo jumbo?
Mid-1st sounds about right, would probably move a late 1st for him and would not give a projected early 1st.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
A mid-1st would've been too much before the atbitror ruling was announced IMO. Now I really think you'd have to be deluaional about what this guy prioritizes in life.I think there is the potential for a disconnect between his trade value and where most sites are going to rank him. What I mean is that I think it is probably going to be easier to get a 1st (or whatever the appropriate price is for that range) because he is more volatile. That increased volatility is going to allow people to more easily create the narrative where he could significantly help their team.Josh Gordon dynasty value now?
A 2015 1st?
On FBG and a couple of other dynasty rankings, I see him ranked around rookie WR3 or WR4. So that could be turned into around a mid-round first pick IMO.
Thoughts from anyone who rather talk value than legal mumbo jumbo?
Mid-1st sounds about right, would probably move a late 1st for him and would not give a projected early 1st.
VaTerp
Footballguy
Here's my rant.
Josh Gordon is ultimately responsible for what has occurred. As ludicrous as the NFL policy--and federal and the majority of state laws-- are regarding marijuana use, he knew the rules and put himself in position to be in violation of them. And for that you can call him stupid, a moron, an addict or whatever other term makes you feel better about yourself.
If I were to call him anything it would be immature as that is really what it is. Not fully realizing or accepting the consequences of his actions. But let's remember that he is 23 YEARS old. I know I too was immature at 23--almost all of us were in one way or another-- and did A LOT of stupid things, including some that were illegal. I would have failed at least 95% of the marijuana tests issued to me at that time--and in fact failed a pre-employment test at a job that I was still hired at, worked at, and where I happened to meet my future wife. And guess what. I'm now a married 36 year old father with a graduate degree, a "career", own a home, and act as a generally productive member of society. I also know of many successful people--educators, lawyers, business owners, executives--who have, or currently use marijuana and/or other illegal recreational drugs, including ILLEGAL use and abuse of prescription drugs--which by the way the NFL has essentially supported. And guess what whether you KNOW it or not you personally KNOW people like that too.
I see people posting things suggesting that Gordon is some sort of plague on society. Let's look at what he's really done. A DUI that is a serious offensive and should be dealt with by the laws of the state of North Carolina.... and he seems to really like weed. So much so that he failed a reported ONE OF 70 tests in the last year---btw at a level that is not even recognized by the most vigilant drug policy enforcement forces in the world. Ok.
At the same time, he's also managed to be, by both some objective and subjective measures, the best in the world at his job.
So let's look at the cost/benefit of his action and the results. In and of itself Gordon smoking weed in his free time has pretty much ZERO negative impact on himself, his team, the league or society. Yet the negative impact of suspending him for his violation of an illogical policy has clear negative affect on him, his team, the league, and society. Yes society because Gordon won't be paying taxes on his salary. In fact, marijuana prohibition in general costs taxpayers an estimated $20 billion a year through enforcement expenses and the loss of tax revenue. And It costs the Browns their best player, the NFL one of the best young players in the league, it costs opposing players the opportunity to match their skills against one of the best, fans the chance to see the highest level of competition, and FF Players ANOTHER WR1 IN DRAFTS and on their rosters this year. And for what? Because he smokes weed--a recreational decision, which is measurably less harmful than tobacco, alcohol, and many of the prescription drugs that NFL heavily supports through team doctors and money making deals. Take an honest look at what's going on here. There are ZERO facts that support marijuana prohibition being good for society. I'll take that argument any day.
Gordon is guilty of being immature and making a selfish decision to be anywhere in the vicinity of something that positioned him for a positive test, no matter how majorly insignificant the levels suggests that vicinity may have been. But again he's 23 years old. The vast majority of us made bad decisions at that time in our lives that didn't costs us so dearly because we weren't in such punitive environments. And because of a draconian and ill advised policy one bad decision is costing this 23 year old, and countless others, immensely. It serves no one.
Stop with the talk of what would happen to "most people." Most, as in the VAST majority of people, DONT GET drug tested at all in their current jobs, let alone randomly. Some employers do pre-employment testing and I know for a fact that people fail those and still get hired. I was one of them. If employers want to test job applicants before hiring then that's their right no matter how pointless it is for many of them. And it makes sense for people in jobs involving public safety and incident based policies.
But the NFL's policy serves no one--other than the pharmaceutical companies the NFL is in bed with-- and it's evident. A high percentage of players still smoke weed anyway. Chris Cooley recently said it would be easier to find a group of guys to go smoke with then a group to go have beers with. There is undeniable medical research that proves marijuana is a more effective for certain individuals as a MEDICAL option for treatment of certain conditions. That's why half of the country has legalized medical marijuana. And in fact, many of the conditions that marijuana benefits are conditions that many NFL players suffer from.
Again, Josh Gordon is guilty of some bad decisions and being an immature 23 year old but the NFL, and society as a whole, are much more guilty of falling for 80 years of propaganda from a small number of special interests groups who benefit from marijuana prohibition.
It's illogical, counterproductive, shameful, and insane. And this situation presents an opportunity for people to say so and ask that bad policy be changed. I'm going to take advantage of that opportunity for a while in whatever forums I can right now.
Josh Gordon is ultimately responsible for what has occurred. As ludicrous as the NFL policy--and federal and the majority of state laws-- are regarding marijuana use, he knew the rules and put himself in position to be in violation of them. And for that you can call him stupid, a moron, an addict or whatever other term makes you feel better about yourself.
If I were to call him anything it would be immature as that is really what it is. Not fully realizing or accepting the consequences of his actions. But let's remember that he is 23 YEARS old. I know I too was immature at 23--almost all of us were in one way or another-- and did A LOT of stupid things, including some that were illegal. I would have failed at least 95% of the marijuana tests issued to me at that time--and in fact failed a pre-employment test at a job that I was still hired at, worked at, and where I happened to meet my future wife. And guess what. I'm now a married 36 year old father with a graduate degree, a "career", own a home, and act as a generally productive member of society. I also know of many successful people--educators, lawyers, business owners, executives--who have, or currently use marijuana and/or other illegal recreational drugs, including ILLEGAL use and abuse of prescription drugs--which by the way the NFL has essentially supported. And guess what whether you KNOW it or not you personally KNOW people like that too.
I see people posting things suggesting that Gordon is some sort of plague on society. Let's look at what he's really done. A DUI that is a serious offensive and should be dealt with by the laws of the state of North Carolina.... and he seems to really like weed. So much so that he failed a reported ONE OF 70 tests in the last year---btw at a level that is not even recognized by the most vigilant drug policy enforcement forces in the world. Ok.
At the same time, he's also managed to be, by both some objective and subjective measures, the best in the world at his job.
So let's look at the cost/benefit of his action and the results. In and of itself Gordon smoking weed in his free time has pretty much ZERO negative impact on himself, his team, the league or society. Yet the negative impact of suspending him for his violation of an illogical policy has clear negative affect on him, his team, the league, and society. Yes society because Gordon won't be paying taxes on his salary. In fact, marijuana prohibition in general costs taxpayers an estimated $20 billion a year through enforcement expenses and the loss of tax revenue. And It costs the Browns their best player, the NFL one of the best young players in the league, it costs opposing players the opportunity to match their skills against one of the best, fans the chance to see the highest level of competition, and FF Players ANOTHER WR1 IN DRAFTS and on their rosters this year. And for what? Because he smokes weed--a recreational decision, which is measurably less harmful than tobacco, alcohol, and many of the prescription drugs that NFL heavily supports through team doctors and money making deals. Take an honest look at what's going on here. There are ZERO facts that support marijuana prohibition being good for society. I'll take that argument any day.
Gordon is guilty of being immature and making a selfish decision to be anywhere in the vicinity of something that positioned him for a positive test, no matter how majorly insignificant the levels suggests that vicinity may have been. But again he's 23 years old. The vast majority of us made bad decisions at that time in our lives that didn't costs us so dearly because we weren't in such punitive environments. And because of a draconian and ill advised policy one bad decision is costing this 23 year old, and countless others, immensely. It serves no one.
Stop with the talk of what would happen to "most people." Most, as in the VAST majority of people, DONT GET drug tested at all in their current jobs, let alone randomly. Some employers do pre-employment testing and I know for a fact that people fail those and still get hired. I was one of them. If employers want to test job applicants before hiring then that's their right no matter how pointless it is for many of them. And it makes sense for people in jobs involving public safety and incident based policies.
But the NFL's policy serves no one--other than the pharmaceutical companies the NFL is in bed with-- and it's evident. A high percentage of players still smoke weed anyway. Chris Cooley recently said it would be easier to find a group of guys to go smoke with then a group to go have beers with. There is undeniable medical research that proves marijuana is a more effective for certain individuals as a MEDICAL option for treatment of certain conditions. That's why half of the country has legalized medical marijuana. And in fact, many of the conditions that marijuana benefits are conditions that many NFL players suffer from.
Again, Josh Gordon is guilty of some bad decisions and being an immature 23 year old but the NFL, and society as a whole, are much more guilty of falling for 80 years of propaganda from a small number of special interests groups who benefit from marijuana prohibition.
It's illogical, counterproductive, shameful, and insane. And this situation presents an opportunity for people to say so and ask that bad policy be changed. I'm going to take advantage of that opportunity for a while in whatever forums I can right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously the kid is an idiot, but I don't think we can assume that the NFL's drug policy is going to stay static forever. It is possible that the NFLPA gives in on HGH testing and the thresholds for THC come up dramatically or pot suspensions get reduced dramatically.A mid-1st would've been too much before the atbitror ruling was announced IMO. Now I really think you'd have to be deluaional about what this guy prioritizes in life.I think there is the potential for a disconnect between his trade value and where most sites are going to rank him. What I mean is that I think it is probably going to be easier to get a 1st (or whatever the appropriate price is for that range) because he is more volatile. That increased volatility is going to allow people to more easily create the narrative where he could significantly help their team.Josh Gordon dynasty value now?
A 2015 1st?
On FBG and a couple of other dynasty rankings, I see him ranked around rookie WR3 or WR4. So that could be turned into around a mid-round first pick IMO.
Thoughts from anyone who rather talk value than legal mumbo jumbo?
Mid-1st sounds about right, would probably move a late 1st for him and would not give a projected early 1st.
Dude got popped for marijuana possession once at Baylor and the recent DUI where he was barely over the limit. Were there other run-ins with the law that weren't speeding? Idiot? Sure. Blackmon level? Not even close.
If you think fair market price is significantly south of a mid-1st I can definitely respect that, but it just takes 1 buyer willing to take the chance. And I might be suffering from some benchmark bias based on what OP threw out initially. But let's put it this way, I would jump at acquiring him for a 2nd in virtually any league setting,
If he had no drug/suspension history at all, what is his price? 3-4 random 1sts? so the 1 mid-1st already incorporates a significant discount over what his talent level is.
I understand all of the signs are pointing down right now, and there is a possibility that he never suits up in NFL again. But I am not willing to say that that is definitely the case or that I have a high degree of confidence in that statement.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
This whole Josh Gordon situation is a perfect example of how life as a professional athlete is so much different than what we normally characterize as the typical life of an employee in the real world (just meaning outside of the world of professional sports). If you look at the sacrifices that a professional NFL player has to make as a result of the current CBA--it's absolutely shocking. Just look at the draft process---outside the world of sports--it would be 100% unconstitutional. Could you imagine if med students couldn't dictate the course of where they wanted to be employed after graduation? Instead, they would have to sit around while hospitals draft them one by one--and once drafted by a hospital--they had no way of using the free market to negotiate their value. This is just one example of a possible many that highlights the differences between "regular employment" and employment as an NFL player. While I think the ruling is unfair in regards to the real world and logic--the fact is that the agreed upon CBA changes that reality. Based upon the "CBA" world--the ruling is correct. Gordon was a multiple offender and he had enough narcotics in his system to be in violation of the agreed upon terms of the CBA (regardless of how ridiculous some of us feel those terms are). I think the biggest message in this whole situation is to always know what you are signing up for and agreeing to when it comes to any commitments one should make. Sometimes we need a failure to occur in our systems to remind us that our systems can be improved.
Half in the bag
Footballguy
This same system would have made him 50 million dollars had he just followed the rules. The trade off for giving up the right to be young and immature is being paid more money than most of us can dream of
GregR
Footballguy
MT, didn't know if you would find anything interesting in the ruling on the DJ Williams appeal. This was for performance enhancing drugs, not substance abuse if I stated that wrong earlier.
Anyway, two parts I found interesting, first with regard to delaying a judgment to provide time for negotiation being a consistent practice:
Anyway, two parts I found interesting, first with regard to delaying a judgment to provide time for negotiation being a consistent practice:
Other one referencing the non-neutrality of the arbitrator. Henderson was the arbitrator for this case and it sounds like the substance abuse policy uses similar language about the Commissioner's designee:
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
yes--you are right when it comes to it not specifically being mentioned in the constitution--but the founders of the constitution were very much into free markets and freedom of employment--the article in the link below is a very interesting readhttp://www.nccs.net/freedom-of-individual-enterprise.php
In any case--I certainly don't want to pull this crazy thread off topic--but yes--the Sherman act would have been a more accurate document to use in my original post.
Donsmith753
Footballguy
Atleast Soulfly was here to own it, fair play
