Report: Josh Gordon applies for reinstatement
Charean Williams
33 mins ago

Free agent receiver Josh Gordon officially submitted his reinstatement letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, Adam Schefter of ESPN reports.

Gordon hopes to be with a team for training camp.

The NFL has randomly drug tested Gordon the past three months, per Schefter, with Gordon passing all his tests.

The NFL conditionally reinstated Gordon last season, and the Seahawks expected him back on the field. But the league rescinded the conditional reinstatement, and in January, Gordon again was suspended indefinitely.

The Seahawks released Gordon on March 4, so he could play in the Fan Controlled Football league.

Gordon led the NFL in receiving yards in 2013, but in seven seasons since then, he has played in only 33 regular-season games while missing 79 because of a series of lengthy suspensions. Gordon last played in December of 2019.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/02/report-josh-gordon-applies-for-reinstatement/amp/

This should be a Hard No the moment the paperwork is submitted. No delay.

LOL If he shows skills, someone will pick him up.... That is if the NFL let's it happen

How many chances has he had now...

Green Bay will snag him to appease Aaron Rodgers. lmao

I wonder how much money he owes his agent at this point. Dude was floating Josh's existence for a while, totally funding his last comeback (and P.R. campaign) with the Browns, and I believe he kept working it to get Josh his other comebacks since then.

I wonder if the agent can write it off as a bad investment or something, lol

Either way, there is ZERO reason to give him another chance at this point.

At least he’ll be fresh.

I like Josh Gordon and feel bad for him. I don’t see how he can ever contribute positively to an NFL team.

He needs to keep playing because of an unfavorable court ruling from some years ago that ensures he has no money, because whatever he earns go to someone else, if I recall correctly.
Just a conclusion I drew from whatever I read some 5-7 years ago,
Since the courts won't let him earn any money, without giving it away to others, he'll keep trying to play forever, because he probably likes to eat.

Priceless!

I love the fact that I support a team that doesn't need to take a risk on a guy lik- er...


Damn, kids- 'now' is whole lot better than 'then,' ain't it?

I say reinstate him. If some team is dumb enough to take a flier on him, then it's on them. He physically will not meet the rigors of the NFL.

The drug policy seems pretty archaic as it is. If Gordon wants to eat blow for breakfast, but can perform, does it really matter? It's a game! He's not performing thoracic surgery.

Would you be good if he landed with the Ravens or Steelers? I know he will almost assuredly screw up again but be careful what we wish for... I don't want the one season he plays every game and returns to his all-star talent form to be a thorn in our side.

A dream scenario! Neither franchise is desperate enough to make that mistake.....unfortunately.

2013 was a long time ago.

Josh made a lot of mistakes, no question but everyone is deserving of a chance. Yup, he blew it over and over he blew it. But to my knowledge all the harm he ever did was to himself. I don't believe he is a bad person he had a real ruff start in life and yes I do believe he deserves another shot.

WE GOTTA GET THAT GUY

He's had plenty of chances...

I don't know if he deserves another shot - he's had a lot of chances. But I still hope he sorts his schtick out and sorts his life out.

At this point you cannot stop...got to let him in the precedent has been set and it actually might be his last minute so all is forgiven. I don't know any of the mumbo jumbo but he should keep on trying until the clock stops ticking.

Fair point. I think the only argument could be that he's taking a roster spot from someone that actually deserves to be there.

He'll never regain that form. He pretty much admitted that he was high during his best performances. He needed that edge to get the most out of his physical skills. When was the last time he actually strung multiple good games together? He has (had superhuman raw talent, but let his demons quash the opportunity to hone it or keep it fresh. It's more than likely gone for good.

j/c

I'm all for second chances. Sometimes even third chances. It's nice to be able to hold out hope that someone can turn things around. But to me Josh Gordon is out of chances. At some point accountability comes into play. Enough is enough and he's gone well past enough.

I agree but there is this little thing known as, the kid can play... and Play great! He's got skills that are far and away better than most. When he is available that is.

I like Josh,, he seems like a good guy.. His teammates over the years have said that same. Not sure why he can't keep clean... It's not like he is using addictive substances... (or do I have that wrong)

Yes, you have that wrong.

So, he was using more addictive stuff?

The Josh Gordon situation is a divisive situation, but, since he's not trying to come to the Browns I think people should mostly let it alone.
4 things.

1. Josh Can and could play ball at a noticeably good level.
2. Alleged or rumored or actual, (I never followed any of this that close), drug use had people turn against him and turn against his opportunity to earn a living playing football.

3. At some point, whether a custody case or divorce or something, a court pretty much took like 90% of anything JG could have or earn for the forseable furture from him because of the behaviors.

4. At one particular weekend in time, everyone publicly and all of a sudden changed their comments about Josh from endlessly condemning his alleged drug behavior to saying words in support of him, and support of him overcoming his problems, a whole, get well Josh, all of a sudden, in one weekend. (Which led me personally to think he flipped out and tried to off himself, but nobody was going to say something like that publicly.)

So, at the end I think it doesn't matter much to me as a Football fan who they do or don't let play football, unless it effects my team, and pretty much I figure, any off field stuff? Is for the legal system to decide,
In my opinion,
If someones eligible to work at a gas station, legally,
and they can play football on the field at the best level in the entire world skill wise,
then they aren't taking any opportunity away from someone else who "deserves" it.

Because I think the only "deserve" comes from someone's abitlity to perform the game on the field.

(Otherwise, where is the line? Moral something judgement means the fictional character from 'father knows best' or eqivilant = better at jumping cars on a motorcycle than Evel Kinevil because society decides who is more deserving of the opportunity to draw thousands and jump motorcycles.
that would be Bull!!!! with a capital B and not a world I'd want to live in.

The biggest problem I have with the whole situation, (mostly because literally "millions" of people get caught up in drugs and though it's a bad for society thing I feel it's a mind my own busisness type situation)
can't fix stupid,
So the biggest injustice I think in the whole thing
is the courts made it impossible for dude to make a living, so much so that he has to try and do this impossible task of stay an NFL talent beyond his years,

because some (unjust imo) court, decided to base his amount to pay back a debt to other people on his abilities to make money playing football in more youthful years.

^ And I don't even know if that's the case, I'm just assuming it is, but, in this type of assumption,
it sounds just like something a court would do.

So, God bless him in his struggles against haters,
and God bless him in his struggles agasinst the drug problems to overcome.
And God bless and help anyone wronged by him who really needs healing.

marijuana
alcohol
xanax
codeine
cocaine
hydrocodone
oxycodone
adderall


And that's just what he has admitted as repeated abuse. With a gameday ritual of "bong rips and shots of whiskey"...

That changes my thinking... He should be banned for life

I think he has untreated anxiety.

He once said he used to get high before games. He has performance anxiety.

Why?

... granted, with his repeated infractions this is essentially his punishment... but I'd love to know why you think it deserves a ban for life when other players with far worse off-field infractions have gotten far less. IIRC, Ray Rice didn't even get a lifelong ban... no team wanted to touch him. Aldon Smith played after his domestic violence stuff.

How many times did any of those players commit the same infraction over and over and over again?

Yeah, that's why I put that little disclaimer. He's essentially cobbled together a lifetime ban with his ongoing infractions. I just don't see how non-PED drug infractions (however many) should get a higher punishment than when someone KO's a significant other.

The government needs to legalize all drugs, tax them, and make them easy to access... Then the NFL could do away with their ridiculous mj rule and just let the cream rise to the top while the junkies cull themselves from the herd. FREE JOSH GORDON!




joking but not joking.

Because those are the rules in the NFL's drug policy. I had parameters involving drug tests in my employment. Most people do. People have choices. They make choices. There are consequences for those choices.

I think the idea of "trying to understand it" or "I just don't see how" sort of undermines the entire topic. I understand why people do that but is that actually the point?

Is the point whether you agree to conditions of your employment and in this case, even contractual obligations, and then in hind sight say, "Yeah, but it's not fair" or, "Yeah, but I don't see why"?

Or is the point that you signed a contract agreeing to certain parameters and it's your obligation to live up to that contractual obligation or be subject to suffer the consequences of your choices and actions?

You seem to see it as the former while I see it as the latter of the two.

We have a similar situation involving an Olympic athlete right now and I feel the same way about that. She knew the rules and decided to break them. She is now suffering the consequences.

The short answer is neither. With the benefit of hindsight, Josh Gordon got the punishment(s) he deserved as they were outlined at the time. But that doesn't mean we can't then remove the player from the conversation and talk about the rules themselves (I don't know about you, but I'm pretty tired of debating JG's specific set of circumstances).

Daman got a sorta rundown of JG's list of infractions and said he deserved a lifetime ban. I found that curious because a quick Google search said that only 3 people in the history of the league have received lifetime bans (and 1 was quickly overturned). I'm not trying to dogpile or anything... I'm not trying to make him defend his statement... just explain his reasoning behind it. IMO, if someone beats the snot out of their SO, or has accumulated a rap sheet like Aldon Smith, or has the kind of reputation as Vontaze Burfict (short version: hurt people), then why should someone who's only hurting/sabotaging himself get a worse punishment? BTW, Burfict only got a year for repeated dangerous/flagrant hits.

I'm not debating the merits. I'm debating the leeway the NFL has and how many times you can be suspended for breaking the drug abuse policy before the NFL has the ability to give you a lifetime ban.

I also will not engage in trying to compare on the field infractions to off the field infractions. I often times disagree with the punishments the NFL hands down. While you say, "Josh Gordon got the punishment he deserves", the very thing we are discussing is "What punishment does he deserve"?

At some point when an offender does the same thing over and over again, he is a habitual offender. It's almost as if he's rubbing your nose in it. He's giving you lip service but changing nothing. Each time you commit the same offense, the punishment for that offense is supposed to increase. Not remain the same or lessened. That's simply the way things work.

So how many times should an NFL player be able to break the substance abuse policy and be allowed back in the league? Five times? Six times? Eight? Ten? At what point is enough, enough?

In short, the NFL - namely, the owners - will wrangle the rules to get whatever talent benefits them.

How many chances will Josh Gordon get? A current maximum of 32 would be my guess. As long as he has the potential to bring excitement that sells tickets and jerseys and gives a franchise a better chance at winning, owners will go to bat for him behind closed doors. They'll be in Goodell's ear.

Aldon Smith or Ray Rice? Same thing.
The NFL has to make a show of caring and doing the right thing, but in the end, they don't really care unless public opinion and outcry demands that they appear to care.... and, let's face it, that's all the general public REALLY wants. The *appearance* of giving a damn. A show of contrition, a sacrifice to the jesters in the courts of public opinion.


All that said, if it were up to me, he'd be out of chances in my league.... but, I also don't stand to make any money off of it, so I have no other motivations on the matter.

I thought it was just Mary Jane,, but if it's all those things,, NOPE.. gotta end it here.

Where have you been through all of this?

In the event he is reinstated, his history will be against him in getting a contract with many teams. I know someone will take a shot, as mentioned perhaps Green Bay to make Rodgers happy. I just hope the young man keeps clean and makes the best of whatever opportunities he may have and exercises the demons that lead him down the wrong path. Be it football or washing dishes.

Clearly I didn't waste my time worrying about Gordon...

As it turns out, you were the smart one here.

Can't let high drugged up people play games in the NFL, but, it's not my business who the NFL suspends or let's play.

It is not what goes into, but what comes out of a man that defiles him.

Defiles?

That is deep. **Scratching me head.

Not to interrupt the revelry, but I think that's a typo (replace the l with n)...just to be clear. Carry on...

No it's not an N. It's from the Bible, Jesus said it, and it's defiles or defileth but surely not define.

Josh's Answer:

https://nfl.com/gordon-appeal-070721/...html

Perfect for Gordon. I hope he gets another chance with some other team for ONE reason only- so he can support his children in some way other than taxpayers paying for their support.

You're presuming that's what he would do with the money.

I don't think Josh is a bad person y'all. All reports are that he is a decent guy but he has a drug issue. So football aside (I feel he's burned that bridge), none of this means he won't be a father or work for his kids. Hell amazon is hiring locally with no pot tests...

Deja vu all over again.

At this point I’m not sure he could even help a team, but I will root for him to finally overcome … though I won’t hold my breath

Just throwing out this elephant in the room (at least for me) about the JG marathon and yet another appeal. I wish him the best and success overcoming his issues.

How would the NFL serve itsself, its image, its reputation, and also The Game if Gordon was denied? As is, we can't argue about where the bar is set; nobody has seen it. A ban might be a deterrent.

My opinion is that it's great that they've given Josh as many chances as they have. But at what point do you stop looking like a compassionate entity to looking like an abused wife who keeps allowing her abuser to move back in over and over again?

Point well taken.

FOR ME, I never thought smoking weed should ever stop anyone from making a living so I think this conversation is silly and that is where the suspensions started.

I find it shocking as well that in this day and age we as a society still love to stomp the life out of someone for making a mistake. I feel no need to keep Josh or anyone else from making a living over drug abuse period.

I think and thought he needed help, he had issues growing up and I understand I fought some of those battles myself and I won those battles. And you and many others are making a huge mistake by trying to define Josh as a person for his struggles. I want him to win his fight and to go on and live a productive life, you and many others want revenge and that is a shame. We as a people need to start pulling for each other we are all any of us got and we truly need each other.

I am glad that someone in the league has the heart to care enough to want to afford Josh a chance and I don't care how many times he fails at trying to collect himself I still want him to have a chance because at the end of the day he is a human being, and it's what I would want for myself and for the people I love and care about.

I try to avoid these sort of threads because I find people in todays world are losing or have lost their ability to have a heart to care about something or someone outside their inner circle. It's time we started living up to who we pretend to be, and for me it starts by standing up for and by being there for people just like Josh who struggle yet need a chance.

We really don't disagree in some respects. I agree weed itself should not be a reason for an NFL suspension or the punishment by any employer. Sadly, weed is not the only issue here. Here's where we disagree.

Whether we "believe" or "feel" that weed as well as possibly some other drugs shouldn't be a banned substance, it is. And it is that way according to a collective bargaining agreement between the players and the NFL. The players agreed to this and it is a part of their contractual obligation.

So it seems what you believe is that people should be able to sign a contract, agree on the conditions of their employment, then never have to answer for breaking that contractual obligation. That a contract means nothing, your word should mean nothing and that somehow the fact you broke that contract the NFL should not follow the recourse you agreed to.

It also seems that you believe that no matter how many times someone craps in your yard, you should welcome them to crap in it over and over again. At some point you're out of chances. At some point it's up to an individual to live up to their obligations rather than try and point the blame for their actions on someone else.

For me this is simple he is a human being and you missed that.

Try hiding from being human it will catch up with you every time. People matter more for me then a contract and I don't think Josh has ever gotten away with anything in fact out of all of this who truly is the biggest loser?

Stand up for those less fortunate than yourself. That's what Jesus told us to do.


I didn't notice this before but try living it and stop saying it until you actually mean it.

I don't really see it as a weed issue no matter ones position.

It's a issue of rules. A person follows them or they don't.

Unless the rules change, pot is off limits. I am all for giving extra chances, but I agree with Pit, at some point you aren't making a mistake, you are simply choosing to break the stated rules.

Josh has had plenty of chances. It's time to cut bait with that guy. Let him go play in the XFL or whatever the league is called.

I agree with some of the "Enough already" crowd. I want the best for him, but is there no limits? This is free country and we are all entitled to consequences. Is he entitled to unlimited chances and does he seem to believe that he can look past all guidelines? Limits are for everyone.

I am for due process and for second chances. He has had more than a reasonable amount of both. Nothing mandates that the NFL has to be the ongoing venue of failure, that it must put him back in and allow failure to compromise another team again.

I am for due process, but I oppose undue process.

I've been staying out of this discussion. I have no problem with giving 2nd or even 3rd chances. But Josh has had at least 10 by now, and he keeps breaking the rules. It's not about the weed for me, it's about keeping to the terms of the agreement. He has no sense of honor.

I don't care if the NFL reinstates him, so long as Cleveland is not involved.

JMHO, I don't understand the folks who sign him....their drug "experts" will keep him clean...right. When does the old "availability" maxim come into play. Yes, he had super human football skills....BUT, he's nearly NEVER available and TRUST, right.....Go Browns!!!

There is NO REASON why the NFL or any employer should be allowed to set in place rules that infringe on the personnel choice of anyone who works for them. They have no roll in public safety and the league itself has real safety issues but they don't endanger the public they endanger the players.

You guys want to talk about something lets talk about why it is the league gets away with these rules to begin with? and again I believe this has way more to do with exacting revenge on Josh then it does what's good for football and Josh, mostly good for Josh. Never lose sight that he matters and that he has value as a person, a human being. Not that it seems to matter he may have suffered a brain injury from playing football that causes him to have difficulty with commitment, reason, and a host of other issue that we all have seen come up from football injuries. But that is not what is discussed what is discussed are rules that IMO the NFL has NO right to impose to begin with and so lets toss Josh say a prayer tonight and feel good about ourselves because we are kind and compassionate beings who care far more about Josh then we do say our football team.

I don't think the NFL has a right to end anyone's career for weed or for that matter any other drug their a business and their business is NOT law enforcement. Employers in this country have been allowed to turn their employees into slaves to set in motion rules that strip employees of their right to privacy. I have worked for employers that test their employees for drugs and they fire people I think it's wrong, and it is if you believe in the rights given us under the constitution the one and only time I give a waver for this is when public safety is involved but this issue is far and away removed from that. But still we have worked society to the point that they think its Okay anyway and I disagree strongly disagree.

I think Josh matters far more then this stupid rule, and as a compassionate caring person I want him to be given a chance to get it together and be all he can be so maybe someday he can achieve all he is capable of achieving and the hell with anyone who thinks that its better that we enforce rules that the league set in place that I don't believe they should be allowed to have to begin with. But if you insist then lets be dead curtain that Josh's issues aren't a result caused by head injuries.

The way I look at it, Josh belongs to a players union that agreed to a contract, and as a member of this union he is obligated to abide by the rules of that contract. His elected peers took part in the negotiations and a majority of his fellow players voted to accept the contract. There really is no argument to support that he was wronged. It isn't some rights violation that was forced upon him.

Agree.

Do I think it's a waste of time to test for many of the drugs, sure. Let him Tony Montana mountains of nose candy, who cares, if he can still perform? However, there are terms of your employment that state otherwise and the NFL is ultimately concerned with protecting their brand.

I would protect my brand, too, if I just landed a $100B TV/streaming rights down.

Bottom line, Josh Gordon isn't bigger than the game, he had one big year 8 years ago and has lived off that reputation ever since. He's Sandy Lyle in Along Came Polly.

jc

The problem with allowing weed or other drugs is like JG did: Get high before the game. Pretty sure nobody wants to play a violent game with a high player. That is a potentially dangerous situation.

BOOM.

One other thing ..... Gordon has already admitted to many, many different drugs, some of which are extremely addictive, (I admit that I don't know the value of these) and since he is broke, I would guess there would be an opening for corruption if he couldn't afford hid drug fix.

I understand many of your points.

The fact is you are focused on the rule and not the rule breaker. You may not like the rule, but until that changes, you can't keep breaking the rules.

I notice that not a one of you will take on the issue that perhaps Josh has suffered a brain injury and that is the cause of his inability to make better choices for himself.

We see players having to end their careers or that end up living in their cars or under bridges or commiting suicide as a result of brain injuries suffered while playing football. Has it at all occurred to any of you that he may be a victim of playing football?

I also notice that you all don't or won't even consider that Josh has suffered greatly from his poor choices, in fact nobody has suffered more thru all of this then he has.

When is enough enough? Or is the thirst for revenge more important then any possible underlying cause of his issues to begin with?

We as people need to be far more compassionate and understanding and supportive of each other then we are, and this at the end of the day says far more about us then it does Josh. When did it become more important to exact revenge or to punish someone then it is to be supportive, caring, loving?

Many of us need to aspire to be who we think we are as apposed to who we really are and that starts when people are struggling, that is when we need each other most.

I am done here I have said my piece, I believe you most of you are wrong on this and I think you have a lot to do in terms of self evaluation, I really do. I don't think you are bad people I think you just don't look at why you believe what you do and see how that has negatively impacted all of our worlds.

Placing more value on Josh is where we all should be IMO not in some meaningless rule.

Come on...LOL...though I do agree he is probably brain damaged. At least brain challenged.

He had this problem in college. Probably high school.

If he is brain damaged, all the more reason to not allow him to play football.

The league has EVERY right to hire whomever it wants under nearly any condition it wants. It is their league, they get to set whatever standard they want.

However, to back that up, all of the players MUST belong to the NFLPA player's union, which agreed to all of it. So, the player's representation has also said it is ok.

Lastly, these conditions exist prior to employment. They all know going into it what the expectations of them are. They have Agents who only get paid if the player gets paid, so you know the Agent has also told them before they actually sign with a team or get drafted. The NFL uses, last I knew, the exact same drug-testing standard as most sports, which is also what the Olympic committee uses, I believe, and it is primarily in place to look for "performance enhancing" drugs, but added to that is checks for all illegal substances.


If Josh doesn't like it, he is perfectly free to go play in any other league. He could go to the CFL, the XFL (or whatever other startup there is) or any of the semi-pro leagues around.... but, he has to play by THEIR rules, too. In the end, he wants the biggest paychecks there are, so he keeps coming back to the NFL - and they still have the same rules they've had all along, and he still thinks he's above them.

And this is supposed to be an argument to allow him to continue to play football and further cause injury to the brain so he can have his capacity to reason reduced further??

All while then enabling him to continue to obliterate whatever connection to reality remains with narcotics?






Did you ever stop to think that the most compassionate thing for Josh is to allow him to feel the full and unrelenting consequences of his actions?

Sometimes, you just have to let the clown finish their act.
You don't help someone reach rock bottom by propping them up. Anytime that may have worked, ever, has absolutely been the exception - and Josh is no exception. Tough love is REAL love.

j/c

There is so much irony on this topic. I have two points about the NFL in Josh's (type) regard:

#1 - There are stretches of the year where the "team" can have no contact with the player...yet the NFL drug tests year-round. The team cannot provide support and counsel throughout the year to help with your demons, but the NFL can random drug test you. The "rules" are NOT set up to help a player...but to "catch" him screwing up;

#2 - I don't think the NFL has any right to hand down penalties for victim-less rule breaking. There should be guidelines that are out there but that exist for TEAMS to administer and/or follow...and those guidelines should be very, very, uber specific to avoid the (seemingly) usual nature of those NFL-level decisions.

Last comment...I'm amazed at the number of posters who support a lifetime ban in his situation and others like his. He hasn't hurt anyone but himself...he breaks rules, he gets suspended. If a team wants to sign him, they should NOT be beholden to the whims of the "NFL". The "NFL" pretending to care about the player(s) is a joke.

Again, you forget about the rules in place.

I may not like the rules, but it doesn't matter what I like. There are a lot of rules in games and life that I don't like.

Josh knows the rules and continues to break them. This isn't that hard.

I won't Judge him but my Gosh he has to show some discipline. If he doest in his life choices then how can we expect him to be discipline in his routes and football program for us.

My understanding is that the weed rules and such fall under the whole "protecting the shield" thing. Gotta keep that shield shiny. Nobody is arguing whether or not Gordon broke the rules, or whether he deserves the consequences of said rule-breaking.

What I don't understand is how that means we can't talk about the continued applicability of the rule, especially when it comes at a time when weed is steadily losing its standing among punishable offenses.

Beyond that, dude got high and submarined his own career. He had the NFL/world by short hairs... and somehow he's dependent on the viability of the XFL/CFL/whatever to make a living. I think keeping context as to what he did and who he hurt (not to mention the logic of a lifetime ban for a guy that very well won't play another snap in the NFL anyway) is what is trying to be argued here.

Dude has duped enough teams in the NFL. Any owner that gives this junkie a roster spot should be required to pay back teams the money Josh earned while with that team.

If the rule changes, and if it is ONLY pot at issue with him, then this is germane. Until then, though, it's really as simple as "The rule is there, and he broke it."
Whether or not anyone feels the rule shouldn't be there any longer doesn't matter right now. That is an aside and a completely separate issue from his reinstatement request. If the rule is gone the NEXT TIME he requests reinstatement, then it's a factor.... but it isn't part of it right now.

Tell me of any other place of employment where you can fail their drug test policy four of five times and get your job back. I'll wait.

There's a difference between being less fortunate and blowing opportunities you have been given. Someone with Gordon's talents and opportunities due to that talent aren't "less fortunate". They have turned their backs on just how fortunate they actually are.

I don't think it's an issue of discussing the rules and if they should change. I certainly think weed should not be a part of the NFL drug policy. I think a lot of us feel that way and that in and of itself would be a great discussion.

But I don't see anyone who has actually attempted to do that. What I see is people who feel that rule is wrong and even though the players agreed to those rules, Josh shouldn't be held accountable to follow those rules.

IMO those are two separate discussions.

He also said

Titus 3:10 ESV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,

Player knows rules and requirements for employment, can't live by requirements. Saying weed shouldn't be on list, JMHO, making weed legal is STUPID. Brain changes, birth defects, and driving skills impaired....sweet. Alcohol and all its fantastic societal benefits aren't enough. Thank God Josh isn't an airline pilot, let him dope up and play ball...sweet. Go Browns!!!

Alcohol is gross. I personally hate it. I hate the way it makes me feel. I hate the way it makes people act. That said what others choose to put in their bodies is none of my business. Nor yours.
You should have no rights to tell Josh what he can and can’t put into his body. Despite your obvious hang ups. Birth defects from weed? You need to put that reefer madness era garbage to rest.
The NFL and every other employer needs to put an end to cannabis prohibition and the archaic rules that come with it.
Show up to the job stoned? Fine, get fired. The rest of my, or Josh’s, life is none of anyone else’s business.

They are, as I have pointed out.

Also, aren't the results of such test private? It is only released a player has failed the testing protocol. I don't think we know exactly for what. I think we assume it is for pot, but it could be for something else as well.

Dayton was at one time a giant GM/Union town...keeping one's job after 4-5 drug tests wouldn't make the radar of transgressions "protected" by the Union.

The "place of employment" in this instance are the 32 teams in the NFL. The industry is the NFL.

Any place of employment can choose to hire someone or to give someone x-chances or not...but no industry can ban a person FOR LIFE from attempting to get a job within said industry. That would be a giant no-no...as in a violation of one's human rights.

Josh is a dipsnot...he is where he is because he broke the rules. I've never believed otherwise. At the same time, I can believe that the rules are unfair, over-reaching, perhaps-illegal, and ridiculously applied or ignored. The appeals process is even more egregious.

Could care less if he comes back or not...he doesn't deserve the attention but let him come back as long as its not on the Browns. I'm sure he is physically talented but his lack of use over the years can only retard his prowess of any form. He wasted his career regardless if he comes back or not.
You cannot change the past!

Peen,

With all due respect, I am not "forgetting" anything here. I've never once said he should not be subject to the rules of his job. I have said repeatedly that he is where he put himself...he has no one to blame but himself for where he is today. The "rules are the rules" is a saying for a reason...you and I both know that.

What I have said is that the rules IMO are over-reaching, unevenly applied/ignored, possibly illegal, have no clear appeals process, etc. I don't say that hoping/thinking/wanting the player named Josh Gordon will/to get back in the game.

The rules are ridiculous and JG should remain on suspension in accordance with those ridiculous rules.

I grew up i the Dayton area. My dad actually worked for Chrysler in Dayton and retired from there. As he explained to me, the unions started for all of the right reasons. But some of their policies had become so ridiculous that Chrysler couldn't even fire someone that had no business still having a job.

And none of them were because it was "illegal to fire someone". It was because the the union made it such a hassle on the company it wasn't worth it.

Also the NFLPA is the players union and they do have an appeals process.

I might agree with you on the rules. Until the rules change, we are left with him repeatedly breaking the rules. I don't agree with stopping at a stop sign when taking a right hand turn. It should be treated more like a yield, but it isn't, so I stop.

I had a Twinsburg Chrysler employee who bought several cars from me when I worked up in Kent. He said that there was a guy who showed up for his shift, and slept through it. Frequently. Chrysler fired him, and the union went to bat for him and got his job back. Just amazing. Other employees on the line had to do their jobs along with his so he could sleep. There were a lot of good people who worked at that plant when I sold cars, but there were a few who were .... not as good.

I can't even tell you how many guys I've listened to tell about their drinking days and how they would constantly show up to their shifts at the auto plans utterly hammered and the unions would save their jobs over and over again.

This is why, despite growing up in a construction union family, I'm anti-union these days. It's Yin & Yang. A long time ago, the bosses had too much power and unions were needed to empower the workers and create better conditions and better pay, but now the unions are the ones with too much power and they need to be put in check as in more cases than not, the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

LOL @ the love for Flash...Hilarious...

In case you didn't know, he is NO LONGER ON THE BROWNS TEAM!!!!!!!!!!

I think that anytime we are placed into a situation where we have to sign up for something that we don't necessarily agree with but we have to choose between signing on the dotted line or going hungry or in the case of player contracts in the NFL pass up our dream as a condition of employment and a part of that is giving up our personal freedom guaranteed to us under the constitution things have gone to far, period.

The mistake here I believe is believing that employers have rights. They are NOT people so they have no rights, period. Individual rights were guaranteed to us so we could truly be free and any condition that is created no matter the motive that requires any individual to sign away those rights is wrong period. It is NOT a free choice and no you cannot say no to it and be a part of the NFL. This is also true of many many jobs in this country now. In fact protections for employees are nearly non existent at this point.

So my question is this I guess what would make anyone think that Josh or any player in the NFL or all of us really should have to sign away one or any of our freedoms as a condition of employment? This isn't freedom that is for damned sure. If Josh or any player or any of you believe that players can say no or many of us as well to this requirement you haven't a clue what freedom looks like.

If this were IMO actually a choice that is respectful of you're rights then you should be able to say no and participate anyway, but we all know that is NOT the case. The response that I see coming from far to many of you that Josh agreed too, or he could have said no are truly out there. You don't have a choice sign or go hungry that is your choice.

I personally don't think you can call us free in this instance we are clearly not and I don't trust corporations with my rights nor do I feel I should be required to as a condition to ply my trade. You can call it freedom if you wish but it's NOT, and in truth and in reality personal freedoms were put in place to protect us all from this very thing.

I have said no to signing non disclosure agreements in the past because a part of that agreement was that I could not work in my trade if I quit for a period of time. Companies have used these contracts as a means of enslaving their employees and way to many of us IMO think it's OK.

Companies have the ability to fire employees for showing up to work drunk or high, and beyond that they can stuff it when it comes to intruding in rights guaranteed us under our constitution. If you truly believe in personnel freedom you can't support this. This practice should have never gotten started to begin with IMO.

Calling this freedom or choice shows how brainwashed people have become.

Now I am done, please continue.

Yes they do...and in many drug-related offenses the NFL could sit on an appeal and not say squat for unlimited lengths of time OR they can hop right to the appeal, lift it and move on...there's no rhyme or reason and that allows for the appearance of favoritism.

So a business has no rights? They are somehow breaking the constitution by having requirements, standards and conditions of employment?

It's a contract the players union negotiated for under the collective bargaining agreement. The players could have voted the contract down and held further negotiations. They chose not to and ratified the contract.

Can you explain how the constitution enters into that?

He did show up for work drunk or high. You seriously can't consider that an employer unaccepting of illegal polysubstance abuse (such as what JG has admitted using, I'm not talking just marijuana here) by their employees is infringing on someone's constitutional or inalienable rights. Just what rights would those be? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Drug addicts aren't a happy lot and most definitely aren't choosing life or liberty. They are slaves to their addiction to life shortening substances.

I wonder where our founding fathers would stand on this?

You're way off base.

One, a company is a legal entity and it DOES have the right to set hiring standards for itself.

Secondly, just what Right it is you *think* is being infringed upon by a company setting those standards.... do you HONESTLY believe that you have a Right to do whatever you want and still have any job you want?

That's NOT how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.

One problem, as I see it, is that the NFL can say nothing except that "the player has been suspended for (term of suspension) for violating the substance abuse standards set forth in our contract with the players."

They can't say how many total violations the player has had, just what drugs he tested positive for, or really much else at all.

I sincerely doubt that the NFL is looking to take its stars off the field over nothing. That would be suicide for their business. The testing the NFL does is not set up to catch the occasional user. It is set up to catch the habitual abuser. Why do I say this? Because they literally say to the players, "Here is when we're going to test you. Refrain from drugs during this time". The casual user isn't being caught in this particular web, but rather the abuser.

Exactly. There is no "right to employment." Losing your job does not violate your rights.

Your making a joke of this and of people's rights.

You may want to actually read the constitution and while your reading it look for the part that says employers have rights and for the part that says you may be forced to sign away those rights guaranteed you under this document.

But stop trying to frame it as having a choice when non exists.

No one is saying he can't work. He just needs to abide by the rules of the company he works for. Fairly simple and straightforward.

He can get a job anywhere he wants as long as it isn't the NFL.

Even if he gets a shot, I seriously doubt any team will hire him.

Why?? He has been more or less fired by several teams. He hasn't been able to cut it as a good employee anywhere.

I actually agree he has to follow the rules. What I am saying is some rules have overstepped the bounds when it comes to freedoms that we are guaranteed under the Constitution. That employers have no limits when it comes to how they create much less enforce their rules.

I say be very careful here your signing yourself up for something that has no constraint.

I think if you show up for work work hard be productive reliable and yes accountable no employer has the RIGHT to require you to take a piss test. It's enough that the employee meets all the requirements related to his job beyond that my boss can stuff his intrusion into my personal life in his arse.

I guess I would really like to see what you might have to say if I asked, where do my employers rights stop, and mine begin?

I don't joke about Rights.
You're off base. You have no Right to a job. You're free to seek employment elsewhere if you don't like an employer's conditions. You have NO RIGHT to demand they change their standard because you don't agree with them.

The employers don’t need to change their systems… the system needs changed. Prohibition of cannabis and it’s archaic rules need tossed at the federal level. All employers should then be told to knock it off with their pee tests. Hire on merit. Fire for cause…. Not for a weekend doobie.

Nor do they have a right to intrude on their employees privacy and that is my point and in truth they have no rights period beyond this is the job. You show up you work hard and are productive what you do in you're time away is you're business just like it's nobody else's business what you do with you're free time.

And although you may not like it the Constitution of this country spells your rights out pretty well and that goes for everyone not just people who work for a particular employer. It's gone to far with the frontal attack on privacy. Search the internet for something I guarantee the next time you log into facebook the advertising will play to whatever you were searching for, and it will do that in spite of any privacy setting in your computer.

Go to a web page and when the little message can we see your location shows up say no and then they still know where you are don't they? They can't respect even their customers privacy and in truth have proven to be quite untrustworthy with the data they gather on people, and according to far to many people it's all okay. And you think it's okay that they do all of this openly when it comes to their employees. Be careful with who you trust, and who you give away your rights to even if they do write you a check each week. There is no oversight and what there is is ignored and you and you're rights are up for grabs.

One of the things that really sort of set me off when it comes to privacy issues was I when I moved here to PA and went to a new Dr. I was given a questionnaire to fill out one of the questions I was asked was what is my social security number. Just like always I left it blank.

After some time had passed the Dr. office brought in a new kiosk system was put in place for patients to check in thru. When I went to this system I was asked one of the many same questions I was asked when I filled out paperwork the 1st time I went to this office was is this you're social security number, and low and behold in spite of the FACT that I had not provided that information to them they had my social security number. I was livid over it.

As most of you know if your social security number becomes compromised and you become a victim of identity fraud you are in for a world of crap. That is why I never have given my information to anyone that had no need to know. It is as many of you know your responsibility to secure that information. When it comes to a Dr having this information you are given no reassurance that your information is secure. That means everyone and anyone who has access to this system can get your social security information and now you become the victim of their mishandling of this information.

When I confronted my Dr with my anger over this he said it's likely the insurance company gave this information to them. Who authorized the insurance company to share that information with anyone? You may also know that a law was passed to make it mandatory that you provide insurance companies with your social security information. Did you know that there is NO law saying who they can share that information with? In this case no one else could have provided that information BUT the insurance company. maybe you think that's OK, I do NOT.

And to really drive that point home my Dr.'s office had their system compromised and guess who had to watch for years now to insure I didn't become a victim?

There are no checks and balances in place. There is NO privacy when it comes to you, none and there may soon come a time where an employer will know based on information that is gathered that you are likely to have health issues and as a result you will be excluded from working for them based on that information.

This has actually reach a crisis stage IMO and as I have becomes aware they are sharing information about you in an endless stream of data gathering and it's just a matter of time before we all become true victims because we didn't say that without oversight and protections in place we left ourselves open to this evil. The one thing we do have working for us is the guarantees laid out for us under the constitution but employers have side stepped these guarantees by making it mandatory that you sign away those rights in order for you to work for them.

When it comes to the NFL for all intent and purpose the NFL is 32 employers who openly collude with each other to restrict the free movement of employees. Lets say this Ford and GM don't work with each other to stop a ford employee from working at GM, but the NFL is allowed to do exactly that. And it extends to a long list of issues.

As many of you have figured out Josh can go and get a different job, but he cannot get a different job in the NFL so restrictive are the practices of the NFL that they actually own the rights to all but a very few of their employees. There IMO has to be a line somewhere and it goes for all employers that says it ends here. But as of this moment no such line exists and I think it's wrong. Mostly because there is NO limit to what they can and often do require.

If we all keep giving away our freedom we won't have any and I object.

I think we all have a right to our privacy, and that extends to our employer. As I have said show up for work do a good job you owe them nothing beyond that and you simply do NOT.

When what you do in your free time impacts your work time, or when it violates something like a drug usage policy, a workplace has EVERY Right to regulate that. NONE of that is protected activity under the Constitution. You have absolutely zero protected Rights under the Constitution when it comes to drugs or alcohol or tobacco or any other substance use. All

I get your point, but your point is wrong. I feel that you're confusing "how you wish things were" with "how it actually is".
I don't disagree that too much has intruded upon our privacy, and I agree that a lot of the tracking tech companies do stomps on the 4th Amendment, but none of that actually violates anything (though a case really should be brought to the Supremes, but they wouldn't agree because the 4th restricts only the government, not private companies). As someone who is VERY Pro-Constitution, pro-privacy, and works in tech, I really could not agree more, and don't get me started on the smoldering garbage that is the Patriot Act.... but, that is also all a completely separate issue that doesn't apply to Josh Gordon or employers/drug testing, at all.

When it comes to drug testing, an employer violates absolutely zero Constitutional Rights with this requirement. None. If you think it does, I'd love for you to point out the clause that prohibits it, but I can assure you that it is NOT the 4th Amendment.

Yes, but, again, this is arguing what should be and not what currently is. You can't expect an outcome based on how you wish the system was, and Josh has a decorated history of far more than just a weekend doobie being the issue, anyway.

Object all you want.

Good luck.

So lets stop pretending that we are remotely free. As I have said show me where an employer has the right to make it mandatory that you sign away your constructional rights? Show me where it says that employers have 1 single right period.

They do in a common sense way have every right to place expectations on employees in terms of job performance. Beyond that I don't think they have the right to any information including drug use of their employee.

It's just a matter of time before a part of pre employment you also must submit blood for DNA analysis to see if you are predisposed to certain health issues and as a result many of us will be excluded from being employed period. We need protection set in place that draw lines and as of this moment those protection don't exist.

So bad has it become that in most states under right to work laws employees can be fired for any cause or no cause at all. It appears to me that perhaps it's not truly right to work so much as it is right to fire. And the list of things that employers can do is they now can require and employee to give up any right they are guaranteed under the constitution and I think it's wrong and no rule no law will ever convince me otherwise. I have an absolute right to privacy in every respect and that right super cedes any employers right to know. If I do my job and do it well they don't have a right that says they can anyway. Not without some protections of you and that is what is lacking the laws do not protect us anymore there are no lines that say it stops here.

So I ask again where do an employers rights end and mine begin?

Do I have the right to refuse to train someone to do my job? Given that my employer can fire me for any reason or no reason at all why should I train anyone?. I know so I can avoid being fired, right got it? Could I not actually train someone then at the end of that training be fired myself even though I meet the job requirement for the real purpose on the part of the employer to avoid wages? Are we so confused that we believe that employers don't do this?

Did you know that an employer can fire an employee and that under the law they do NOT have to pay a Nickle of back vacation that the employee has earned? An employer can fire someone to avoid paying vacation that is how bad it is? I had a friend who was recently fired after working for a company for 20 years. He was let go for stamping paperwork instead of hand writing in the date, they are refusing to pay him the over 200 hours he had banked in vacation pay. Where are the protections for the employee? Did you know that employers aren't required under law to pay any vacation at ALL.

Oh and I can attest to the absolute fact that my friend was a pro in every way he was the best inspector in the company period and they fired him for total BS, and under current law they can and did cheat him out of his vacation pay. There must be limits.

Like I say I think there needs to be common sense used and there need to be lines to protect all interested parties. But the requirement to sign to agree has no place without protection. The choice between refusing to sign and starve is NOT a choice, is it?

What I am trying to show here is that the law has become very one sided and there by all appearances to me are no limits to what they can and cannot do.

I will concede one thing to you as of this moment the laws all favor the employer and whatever rules they wish to set in place and I think it's completely wrong and in many instances there are abuses taking place and for me at least I think it is easily it's most abusive when it intrudes to the point of invading my privacy.

The NFL is not telling Josh Gordon he cannot use marijuana. It is saying that he cannot continue to fail drug tests and work in the NFL. Those are two different things. Again, there is no right to employment. An employer can have a code of conduct, or whatever they want to call it. It's up to the employee whether or not they want to abide by it and work there, or not work there.

No where in the Constitution does it state that an employer need to change (or ignore) its expectations to align with how an employee wants to behave, or is capable of behaving.

There's the thing, though. With testing like it is, you ARE saying that if you want to play in the NFL, then you are prohibited from smoking pretty much at all (especially in his case with the elevated testing frequency). I don't believe any testing we have can differentiate if you've smoked 1 minute/hour ago, or 1 day or week ago. So by testing being what it is, you ARE effectively telling NFL players that they can't use MJ at all.

I think the NFL has a hard sell to justify its stance on marijuana given what its employees are doing as part of their jobs (they're not operating heavy machinery, not performing open-heart surgery or anything like that... they're playing a game). I don't believe there's any evidence that says MJ gives a competitive advantage.

There is this thing that despite what a few states are allowing, it is illegal.

That might be the inconvenient fact being missed by some.

The could be's and should be's don't matter here. That is an entirely different topic.

He was caught not because his job performance dropped off but because they test. I object to testing without cause. I would agree if an employee displays odd behavior witnessed by several people that is out of the norm then it may be justified but testing without justification is intrusive without cause. There need to be protection in place that are respectful of individual rights if they wish to do business in this country. They of course can go elsewhere if they don't like it.

The Supreme Court says it is legal for employers to require drug testing as long as it is required of all employees within specific job categories. If an employee does not want to be drug tested then they can chose not to take that job. If they take the job knowing the company does drug testing then they must abide by the conditions of the employment they agreed to upon being hired. The only thing that is unconstitutional is for the employer to release the results of drug testing to the public.

Not only that, but if I am not mistaken, the NFL drug policy is a collectively bargained policy. Both the NFL (employer) and Players Association (employees) agree to this. (along with many other provisions)

There is no Constitutional amendment that specifically says that the NFL must pay its players a specific minimum salary. There is no law that states that an employer must pay its employees a specific amount of its revenue.

We know what is going on and one poster doesn't and is trying to turn this in to a political discussion.

Time to move on.

What you aren’t noticing:
while you are complaining about these companies ……you are literally, openly telling whoever information about you on a forum that anyone can access.

Because I said I live in PA? Wow you do know millions of people live in PA right?

So please do explain to me what I have shared that leads you to my door?

Have you looked at your profile on here? Your SS# is clearly visible. So are a couple of your credit card or debut card numbers with exp. dates and pin codes.

Ok...just messing with you.

Yes, I will explain it to you with your set rules .....I never said leads you to your door. That was never the point. Are we playing find where you live or the comment about privacy?

You said privacy issues, you said "they are sharing information about you in an endless stream of data gathering". * I am fully aware that i only quoted one very small piece of your post, that's my fault. I am in the middle of traveling for work and didn't have time. So I can understand the generalization of my first comment and your response. I want to acknowledge that.

Read that.....endless stream of data gathering.

Think about all the stuff you said (and your chat history), then think IF you have facebook, instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, other sites, etc. If whoever (companies, random people, etc) are trying to get your information for whatever reason, they just need to pull key words from any of these things.

Why I commented: this tangent about privacy issues while you are giving out information in the same post.

I don't want to pull this any farther way from the main topic (which i've already done/my apologies).
Stay strong brother, we have a Browns Super Bowl win to watch this year

LOL! It is really hilarious to see a thread about a long gone one year wonder player get bigger and bigger.

it's that time of year

On that sensitive note, I'm going to watch a quick video on his 2013 highlights. It was amazing, and although we all wished of more, at least he gave us that.

Sadly, I think he could have been one of the best.

If he had the want of Jerry Rice he would have been one of the best....

Taking into account that he was high during a lot of those games we probably never got to see his best.

I know I am gonna get killed here, and I know I am probably crazy. But is anyone thinking what I’m thinking? https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32270793/nfl-reinstating-josh-gordon-wr-play-week-4-sources-say

He could definitely come back... on someone else's roster.

He could come back here to live ....... or he could come back to watch a game, if he buys a ticket ..... but as a member of the team? No chance.

He will probably end up in Baltimore or Seattle

Obviously, Flash is not his former self, but as a #2 opposite Odell? Browns don't need to rely on this guy. He is simply another weapon for the right price. I most definitely take a flyer.

Not interested. At this stage of his career I don't see Gordon being any better of a player than what we currently have on the team and with his history how long will it be before he gets suspended again.

"Smart, Tough, Accountable"

Nope, maybe, nope.

Not a chance.

Thanks a lot for bringing this damn thread back from the dead.

I feel like I’m living in an alternate universe where the same thing keeps happening every year. Josh Gordon is a twilight zone episode

He can come to my house to watch the game.

how many times has he been kicked out of the league now and reinstated? 3?

Could bring refreshments to a Muni tailgate maybe. Pretty sure Manziel is available as well.

We gotta ignore these opportunities. NFL should just ban them. Dallas maybe.

Not here.

Make sure to have plenty of booze on hand, just in case. Josh will bring the weed and a bong.

... among other things... allegedly.

I think at least 3? Not sure.

I still feel for the guy - so much talent and too many demons and too dumb to help himself or find people to surround himself with that would have helped him. Hope he finds something in his life that will maybe compensate and he doesn't end up like a Maurice Clarett or something.

I feel the same way for people to a certain point. I mean I understand that people make mistakes and I'm all for giving them ample opportunities.

But at some point after they just never seem to learn I sort of let all of that go.

j/c...

after back-to-back losses, they're desperate for something additional.

If nothing else, they need a threat that has to be respected enough to allow them to go back to riding Kelce/Tyreek.

Chiefs do need a 2nd WR but I’m not sure Gordon is that guy

Radio said Gordon is 'close to' signing with the Chiefs.
Well ummphN A.

He's a talented, big-body WR that they lack, so I guess it makes sense on paper.

Josh is Josh, though.

I have a ton of respect for Reid, but man ...... neither Belichick nor Carroll could keep Gordon on the straight and narrow. I have the under on "6 games played before the next suspension".

OK I'll play. Since you peeps have some sort of obsession over this guy.

Isn't he 45 years old now anyway?

He's thirty.

But only 25 in football years, since he's hardly been on the field.

But 52 in drug abuse years, since he's smoked everything but his socks.

How do you know he hasn't smoked those?

I hope the guy has finally figured it out.

He couldn't keep them lit.

Only a stoner understands this frustration.

An inexperienced one.

I try not to judge people as I have not taken one step in their shoes, but c'mon, how many chances does he get? Let's hope (again) that he makes it, but really, what kind of shape is he in...

I wonder how much of this is money related and how much it is loving football related? Seemed like Josh never loved football

For all his issues, I don't believe Gordon has ever struggled to be in game-shape (or close to it) when needed.

Yep. You can bet your bottom dollar that dude looks like he just posed for a magazine cover. Takes very good care of his body... at least the outside of it.

I thought I read somewhere that he did three shots of whiskey before one of the 2013 games, where he just unloaded on the defense.

I can't imagine A) Looking like he does in general, B) Performing that well athletically after 3 shots of whiskey (I'd probably be asleep), or C) Being able to sustain A and B over the course of a season.

Gordon estimates he did this “Probably every game of my career,” including in college at Baylor. Gordon previously said in the Uninterrupted documentary that people at Baylor had enabled his drug use.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/06/josh-gordon-browns-pregame-smoke-drink

Three shots isn't that much for a young guy. He could easily soak up that kind of abuse back then. Not so much now.

Is he going to play DE for them???

Probably get suspended again in week 17

Josh Gordon, nothing but a 1 year wonder 8 years ago, keeps getting the love.

He was that good

The only thing he was good at was smoking da weed.

Key word in the sentence.... "was". Now he's more trouble than he's worth as has been shown multiple times.

That's why I used the word was.

Which I actually pointed out and emphasized.

Yes you did.

imma have to go with YTown's 6 games and under bet.

we need a new term for Gordon. he has more lives than a cat.

If someone gets new chances over and over again, in business or personal, no matter how many times they screw up, that person is "Gordoned".

Hey, can we start a new thread on the Great Josh Gordon??

One is not enough!