DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Josh Gordon Faces Year-Long Suspension Part 3

Quote:

---

Read the NFL drug policy guidelines cover to cover and tell me you don't believe he's in stage 3.

Deductive reasoning.

No need to be Damanshot and doubt the sky is blue until God tells us it is.

---

Wait,, I'm now a descriptive term LOL Thanks, I'm famous.

Anyway, if you think it's ok to beat a person down because you THINK they are guilty of something, then you and I are on different planets..

So I guess what I'm saying is, don't PDR them until you can prove it

Quote:

---

Grossi expected to hear something, "any minute, any day, any week", I believe he said that 3 weeks ago. The thing that annoys me, jg could have won his appeal, and we wouldn't know about it. My question is, when do we start to feel confident he won't get suspended?

---

It's the NFL's fault that they are taking so long, huh?

Did you ever stop and think that Gordon would just have stopped doing drugs after he had already been busted 5 or 6 times, that we would not have to be waiting and that we could be proceeding w/him as our WR?

Nah, let's not blame poor Josh. He's the victim of abuse from the bullying NFL.

Quote:

---

That's fine, as long as you want to ban other people for being total idiots as well. Ray Rice (beat his g/f), Donte Stallworth (killed someone while driving under the influence), Reuben Droughns (DUI), Eric Steinbach (boating DUI), Tom Heckert (DUI), Desmond Bryant (trying to break into someone's house), Quentin Groves (soliciting a prostitute), and pretty much anyone who breaks the law beyond speeding/accidentally running a red light.

---

Quote:

---

So I guess what I'm saying is, don't PDR them until you can prove it

---

While I agree with PDR on the Gordon thing, this one made me laugh

Quote:

---

I have to admit I haven't followed this too closely only waited for some type of announcement... so can somebody who has followed it please help me separate fact from speculation...

What do we know:

1. Did he fail a test or miss a test?
We don't know
2. Are we sure it was just marijuana and not something else?
We don't know
3. What stage of punishment is he already in?
we can only speculate, therefore, we don't know

Any other FACTS you have would be appreciated...

---

Quote:

---

.. If your kids are looking to athletes as their role models, you need to step in and set them straight...
......................................................................................

Isnt that a shame ?

---

Quote:

---

Those are one time incidents. Some of you seem to be forgetting that Gordon has failed numerous drug tests in college and the pros. He did have chances. They did not suspend him the first time he messed-up. He is a habitual offender.

---

Quote:

---

I have to admit I haven't followed this too closely only waited for some type of announcement... so can somebody who has followed it please help me separate fact from speculation...

What do we know:

1. Did he fail a test or miss a test?

2. Are we sure it was just marijuana and not something else?

3. What stage of punishment is he already in?

Any other FACTS you have would be appreciated...

---

Quote:

---

Are there some players in certain sports who live up to those expectations? Yes I'd say there are. Just like you have noble and honorable people that exist in every walk of life.

---

Quote:

---

Going to have a professional job in the light of the national media? ACT LIKE IT or get fired. Just like every other professional in the world who get fired for far less. I got no sympathy for poor millionaires who can't get their act together.

---

Quote:

---

Totally agree about "next man up". The NFL is all about teams finding a way when guys go down hurt. Outside of QB, it's no excuse.

My thoughts on the whole thing are that Gordon is an idiot for breaking the rule. Pretty selfish on his part. Pretty dumb too.

I think it should be legal, I don't have a problem with it. I think suspending a guy for it is extereme, but rules are rules. He knew what he was doing. That's the point of it for me. He put his team in a tough spot.

---

Quote:

---

.. If your kids are looking to athletes as their role models, you need to step in and set them straight...
......................................................................................

Isnt that a shame ?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.. If your kids are looking to athletes as their role models, you need to step in and set them straight...
......................................................................................

Isnt that a shame ?

---

I know that sounds great, but kids need heros as well.....and IMO most kids view Mom and Dad as Mom and Dad. They don't understand the whole role model deal until much later in life and Mom and Dad are never the hero in the deal.

---

Quote:

---

This again?

---

Quote:

---

PortlandDawg and his people are single-handily destroying this country

---

Quote:

---

Well you have to be careful, about who "they" are.

Probably the exact same people who have promoted trying to enforce prohibition on weed that's cost the tax payers tens of billions of dollars over decades and has had zero effect to date.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This again?

---

everybody knows about you!!!

Quote:

---

PortlandDawg and his people are single-handily destroying this country

---

this is what they say on the board about you!!!!!!

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1155285/page/0/fpart/9/vc/1

---

Quote:

---

too bad he isn't a coke addict

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Totally agree about "next man up". The NFL is all about teams finding a way when guys go down hurt. Outside of QB, it's no excuse.

My thoughts on the whole thing are that Gordon is an idiot for breaking the rule. Pretty selfish on his part. Pretty dumb too.

I think it should be legal, I don't have a problem with it. I think suspending a guy for it is extereme, but rules are rules. He knew what he was doing. That's the point of it for me. He put his team in a tough spot.

---

That's it in a nutshell.

Whatever anyone thinks of the legality or morality (or whatever) is one thing - and completely immaterial.

The fact is that the rules are what they are, and he knows what they are. And he made a choice to violate them.



There is no gray area here.


There's a guy hoping to soften the blow of the consequences he has earned (because we gotta seek the easier software way - life's all fun and games until we are smacked with the reality that we actually have to answer for our actions), but based upon what we know (which is very little), it's pretty cut and dry.
The rest, in my opinion, is simply opinion on how things should be rather than talking about how things actually are.

---

Two excellent posts by Sperg and Purp.

Quote:

---

j/c

not only do I think the nfl shouldn't lighten the punishment for it but I think they should make it like peds. 3 strikes and your out and never play again. whats more uncle sam should make it mandatory that any one caught with pot more than once should be operated on so they cannot have kids. cannot be around children, and should have there own little colonies until the rot of drugs is burned out of our country.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.. If your kids are looking to athletes as their role models, you need to step in and set them straight...
......................................................................................

Isnt that a shame ?

---

I know that sounds great, but kids need heros as well.....and IMO most kids view Mom and Dad as Mom and Dad. They don't understand the whole role model deal until much later in life and Mom and Dad are never the hero in the deal.

---

Moms - or for me, dad became my hero long long after I supposedly "grew up". He taught me work ethic. There's not a sports person around that ever taught me anything. So yes, you're right as far as kids go - but as for adults? Well, for me, Dad rules. To this day, he is the only person that can tell me something and I'll do it. My grandpa's were similar, but they're both dead.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.. If your kids are looking to athletes as their role models, you need to step in and set them straight...
......................................................................................

Isnt that a shame ?

---

I know that sounds great, but kids need heros as well.....and IMO most kids view Mom and Dad as Mom and Dad. They don't understand the whole role model deal until much later in life and Mom and Dad are never the hero in the deal.

---

Moms - or for me, dad became my hero long long after I supposedly "grew up". He taught me work ethic. There's not a sports person around that ever taught me anything. So yes, you're right as far as kids go - but as for adults? Well, for me, Dad rules. To this day, he is the only person that can tell me something and I'll do it. My grandpa's were similar, but they're both dead.

---

No beef Arch....I agree...All I am saying is kids need idols, and those usually aren't parents until a bit later in life.


Parent's are pretty easy to take for granted until they start to die off.

---

my new idol!!!

Quote:

---

Wow!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.. If your kids are looking to athletes as their role models, you need to step in and set them straight...
......................................................................................

Isnt that a shame ?

---

No it's not. People are people no matter their profession. No matter what, if we as people expect people of certain professions to be "heroes, or role models", it's we who are being unrealistic.

Are there some players in certain sports who live up to those expectations? Yes I'd say there are. Just like you have noble and honorable people that exist in every walk of life.

But for those who expect more of someone simply because they play professional sports, you are setting yourself up for disappointment, not the players committing some horrible crime against you.

They have their jobs because of a special athletic ability that none of us can duplicate, not because they're patron saints.

---

Quote:

---

j/c

not only do I think the nfl shouldn't lighten the punishment for it but I think they should make it like peds. 3 strikes and your out and never play again. whats more uncle sam should make it mandatory that any one caught with pot more than once should be operated on so they cannot have kids. cannot be around children, and should have there own little colonies until the rot of drugs is burned out of our country.

---

Nothing that extreme is needed. Simply deny them access to government aid for 6 months following a positive test. That includes foodstamps. They will die off in droves ... course half the reason we give them foodstamps is so they wont be as desperate to rob everyone for food err drug money. Guess it's all our fault they do drugs because we enable them ...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

j/c

not only do I think the nfl shouldn't lighten the punishment for it but I think they should make it like peds. 3 strikes and your out and never play again. whats more uncle sam should make it mandatory that any one caught with pot more than once should be operated on so they cannot have kids. cannot be around children, and should have there own little colonies until the rot of drugs is burned out of our country.

---

Nothing that extreme is needed. Simply deny them access to government aid for 6 months following a positive test. That includes foodstamps. They will die off in droves ... course half the reason we give them foodstamps is so they wont be as desperate to rob everyone for food err drug money. Guess it's all our fault they do drugs because we enable them ...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

j/c

not only do I think the nfl shouldn't lighten the punishment for it but I think they should make it like peds. 3 strikes and your out and never play again. whats more uncle sam should make it mandatory that any one caught with pot more than once should be operated on so they cannot have kids. cannot be around children, and should have there own little colonies until the rot of drugs is burned out of our country.

---

Nothing that extreme is needed. Simply deny them access to government aid for 6 months following a positive test. That includes foodstamps. They will die off in droves ... course half the reason we give them foodstamps is so they wont be as desperate to rob everyone for food err drug money. Guess it's all our fault they do drugs because we enable them ...

---

ha-- that's funny. I've often wondered what would happen if the government made passing a drug test mandatory before receiving aid....

---

Read for yourself.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/...errer=&_r=0


You see. Despite what you want to believe, which is all potheads are lazy scum, it's just not true. We are all around you. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, scientists, engineers, teachers, nurses... and this is just in my social circle. Be afraid. Be very very afraid.

Quote:

---

interesting, only 2.6% tested positive. Also interesting that its against rights to screen everyone for drugs, but are allowed to selectively test those that "look like" they are on drugs. I would have expected the exact opposite- that you couldn't selectively test, would have to do everyone....

---

Quote:

---

ha-- that's funny. I've often wondered what would happen if the government made passing a drug test mandatory before receiving aid....

---

Quote:

---

Some states still pushing drug testing for welfare

Jake Grovum, Pew/Stateline Staff Writer 11:06 a.m. EST March 6, 2014
drug testing welfare


From written tests designed to flag drug users to singling out people with recent drug convictions, state lawmakers across the country are pursuing novel strategies to deny welfare benefits to drug users without running afoul of a recent federal court ruling.

In December, a federal judge in Florida struck down the state's drug-test requirement. But almost half the states are considering drug-testing bills designed to withstand legal scrutiny. In Alabama, Indiana and Mississippi, such measures already have advanced by overwhelming majorities.

The movement is the latest iteration of a welfare drug-testing campaign that began gaining momentum about five years ago. Some lawmakers support the tests to help drug users on public assistance to get help. Others back them to make sure public dollars aren't subsidizing drug habits, or say it's simply about saving money.

"Some states have gotten smarter," said Jason Williamson, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which has challenged drug-testing laws. "There are certainly ways that a state could formulate one of these programs that would make it very difficult to challenge."

LONG HISTORY

Drug testing for welfare benefits has been a subject of debate since Congress overhauled welfare in 1996. As part of those changes, states were allowed to drug test applicants for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, commonly known as welfare. Other safety-net programs like jobless benefits and food stamps have different drug-testing rules, based on federal law and policies in individual states where the programs are administered.

Until five years ago, few if any states drug tested for TANF. Since then, however, at least nine have passed some kind of drug testing requirements for the program, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Kansas and North Carolina did so last year.

Even as interest in drug testing has ebbed and flowed, states have recognized there were some limits to how many welfare applicants they could screen, and for what reasons. A 2003 ruling in Michigan first established those limits, striking down that state's law on blanket-testing applicants, which was the first of its kind.

Almost a decade later, state lawmakers returned to the issue and began proposing tests again. The Florida law, supported by Republican Gov. Rick Scott and approved overwhelmingly by the state legislature in 2011, was a direct challenge to the Michigan ruling and was the first such policy enacted since that decision.

AIMING FOR IMMUNITY

But proposals elsewhere have been more cautious, as lawmakers fear costly lawsuits they seemed likely to lose. At least one state, Georgia, scuttled a similar policy because of the Florida ruling, although new, narrower drug-testing bills emerged there this year.

Other states also have tried to craft laws that will be immune to lawsuits. A measure in Alabama, which has already passed the state Senate, would require anyone convicted of a drug offense in the last five years to undergo — and pay for — a drug test as part of a welfare application. The cost of the test would be reimbursed if the applicant passed.

Republican Rep. Kerry Rich, who sponsored the Alabama bill, said it was written narrowly to avoid a legal challenge. "If I had my way…I would do a random drug test," he said. "But it's been pretty well-established you can't do that."

"I'm not for the taxpayers funding that drug habit," Rich said. "You have a situation, which we've gotten away from, where people are responsible for their own lives."

Other measures would require applicants to take personality tests designed to detect likely drug users. The Mississippi House recently passed such a measure, as did the Indiana House.

Under Indiana's original bill, anyone whose test raised "red flags" would be placed in a pool with other suspicious applicants, and half of those applicants would then be subject to drug testing. But that proposal has already been weakened in the Senate, where lawmakers changed the bill so it would apply only to those with recent drug convictions.

Indiana Rep. Jud McMillin, a Republican who authored the original version, said he may not support the new one. Republicans in Indiana control both chambers of the legislature.

"I am absolutely not interested in passing a bill that doesn't do anything just so we can tell people that we passed a bill to drug test people for their welfare benefits," McMillin said. "I can't find anybody that would make the argument to me that using illegal drugs is a good idea."

GOOD PUBLIC POLICY?

Beyond figuring out how to craft drug-testing requirements, there is a broader question of whether the denial of welfare benefits to drug users is a good idea.

"There are constitutional problems with this, but there are also some serious public policy problems," said the ACLU's Williamson. "All of these programs are making unfair and unsupported assumptions about poor people."

Also, many studies have shown that expected savings for state budgets as a result of testing rarely materialize, even though exact figures on numbers of applicants tested, positive tests and any savings are hard to come by in those states with testing requirements.

Where savings are reported, they are relatively modest. In its first year with a questionnaire-plus-testing policy, Utah reportedly spent $30,000 on the screening to net 12 positive tests. In total, 250 people were denied benefits, in most cases because they didn't complete the process. As a result, the state saved $350,000 in benefits not paid.

In the five weeks before its law was put on hold, fewer than 10% of Michigan applicants tested positive, and only 3% tested positive for "hard" drugs such as cocaine. An ACLU analysis of Florida's drug-testing law found that in the four months before it was halted by a judge, 108 applicants out of 4,086 tested positive.

PULLING BACK

Meanwhile, Minnesota is already revisiting a drug-testing law Republicans pushed through just two years ago, a change of heart brought on by a turnover of political control and a confusing, uneven rollout of the requirement itself. The Minnesota legislature, now dominated by Democrats, will consider repealing a 2012 law requiring drug tests for applicants with a recent drug conviction.

Some counties in the state have acted quickly to implement the requirement. In a few cases, those on welfare rolls received erroneous notices of drug tests based on crimes outside the window that the law requires. Some lost benefits amid the confusion.

Before 2012, counties around the state had the option to use drug tests to screen applicants, but few did, said Kathleen Davis of Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, which helps eligible people access benefits. The proposal state lawmakers are considering this year would revert to that policy.

But Minnesota is the exception.

Tarren Bragdon, of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative advocacy group based in Florida, predicted that states will continue to enact new testing schemes for welfare applicants.

"The goal was always the same," Bragdon said. "How do we protect kids and families, and at the same time ensure that people who are receiving public assistance are ready to go into the workforce and become productive members of society?"

Stateline is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news service of the Pew Charitable Trusts that provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy.

---