|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
By the mere fact that ESPN reported it, it means someone who knew something talked and they weren't wrong about it. The stage it's in now is proof of that.
So somebody talked and they were proven right.
Beyond this, after the hearing, somebody will talk. But it's very unlikely there will be any proof either way of what happened in the hearing. If Gordon or his attorney make a statement that will be one side of the story and that's all we'll get. Except for the anonymous source who's comments won't be backed up or proven one way or the other.
But the first anonymous source was proven right. As ESPN reported, Josh Gordon may be facing a suspension.
I thought it was pure BS that ESPN let it overshadow the Draft by announcing it during. It easily could have waited until the draft was over. Instead, the Browns were under constant scrutiny each round over the "need" to draft a WR. Each round they didn't they were proclaimed dumbasses for not having done so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,848 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,848 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
Again, the NFL, as a whole, would not say anything. That means no one will go on record about this. Every employee is the face of their company while they like it or not. However one person would, most likely, be an anonymous source.
We just love anonymous sources around here LOL
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Again, the NFL, as a whole, would not say anything. That means no one will go on record about this. Every employee is the face of their company while they like it or not. However one person would, most likely, be an anonymous source.
Which still doesn't help us "know" for sure. The article would be written as.. An anonymous source within the NFL confirmed that Josh Gordon was.....
And some will choose to believe that source is reliable and some will not. Until somebody speaks in an official capacity for the organization they represent (in this case the NFL), there will always be room for doubt... and I think that is what Ytown is saying.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611 |
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I might be the only Brown's fan in the world who hope he doesn't get off. He needs to learn that he can't just do whatever he wants.
yeah, probably not too many people would admit to wanting him suspended indefinitely.....
...but if it is a glitch with a flight being late, and he tested clean the next day (a day late)- isn't an indefinite suspension a bit harsh.
I suppose in about a week the real story will come out. I just hope the truth is a missed test and not a positive test. It's really anybody's best guess at this point. It seems like the league has been swift to judgment on many other players this offseason, but for some reason this one is just dragging on into training camp. I don't think it is as black and white as an actual positive test..... there must be more too this story.
That kind of scenario is what I have heard might be the case ..... and if he missed a test by one day because of a screw up while away from home, but tested perfectly clean the next day, then I think that he has a solid case.
We'll see what the verdict is. Should be interesting.
Where is the proof that he missed a flight and then tested clean the next day? You guys keep making big arguments around the word "if."
The guy has been on the other side of the law too many times
He was busted for drugs at least twice at Baylor.
He ran into more drug problems in his brief stay at Utah.
He failed two drug tests as a rookie.
He failed another one in his second year.
He was pulled over for speeding after the suspension was announced and there was pot in his car.
He was then arrested for DUI after that.
In the course of all those violations he had numerous traffic violations.
Now, some will point to one of these isolated incidents and say "no big deal..." Or, "if he only..." The trouble w/that line of thinking is that it's kinda hard to believe he is a victim or just had bad luck when he has had so many violations in a very, very short period of time.
We're not winning the Super Bowl this year w/or w/out Gordon. We won four freaking games w/him having a great season last year. I have already addressed that I knew I would be in the minority, but I think my wanting him to get his life together is more important than him playing for my favorite team this year.
Furthermore, if he does get his life together, he will give the Browns a lot of great years. and we won't have to deal w/this again next year. Because in my mind, his actions have told me he hasn't learned a thing and what happens if he gets off this year only to fail yet another drug test during the season? Think he will "get off" of that one, too? Nah man..........it's better for this young man to face the music, get his priorities straight, and completely revamp his life style.
It's what best for both the player and the team.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212 |
i agree it is important he gets his life together---- IF he tested positive. If he's clean, and passed the test a day late, then maybe he has already come light years from all the failed tests at Baylor and Utah??? Just a thought......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
He was busted for drugs at least twice at Baylor.
He ran into more drug problems in his brief stay at Utah.
He failed two drug tests as a rookie.
He failed another one in his second year.
All of which is why he was in stage 3 of the NFL drug testing.
Quote:
He was pulled over for speeding after the suspension was announced and there was pot in his car.
NFL doesn't suspend players for speeding. The pot in the car he was never cited for since the passenger in the car said it was his. The NFL won't punish Gordon for it since he was never charged for it.
Quote:
He was then arrested for DUI after that
The NFL will handle that situation when the courts have finalized the case. NFLPA won't let Gordon get punished for that until after he has been judged by the courts.
Quote:
In the course of all those violations he had numerous traffic violations.
Again, he isn't going to get a year suspension for traffic violations.
Quote:
Where is the proof that he missed a flight and then tested clean the next day? You guys keep making big arguments around the word "if."
Vague twitter reports and unnamed sources claim he may have just missed a test which means it's a failed test. There really is no proof beyond that.
Do I want him to miss the year? Nope, suspended for the year would mean the Browns have no contact and he will be left to himself. I don't thin that is a great idea if you want him to be a Brown in the future. The best bet would be a minimal suspension where the Browns can work with him throughout Training Camp and Preseason before his suspension hits. Then they could have a good plan in place for the suspended period and Gordon would have a reason to stay clean and work hard till he can play again.
But I think all of that is wishfull thinking. I still think he is going to be suspended for the year.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906 |
You responded to my post, but you didn't really read it, did you? You can take them as isolated incidents, but if you put them all together........they are not isolated. A pattern of poor behavior has been established.
Oh.............and will you please provide proof that he entered the NFL in stage 3? People were saying that, but there were several articles that refuted that claim. So, will you please show us some proof of him entering the NFL in stage 3? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
You responded to my post, but you didn't really read it, did you?
I did, did you read my response? I broke down why taking them as a whole isn't going to matter in this incident.
Quote:
A pattern of poor behavior has been established.
Please show me where I said his behavior was acceptable?? Quit reading every comment directed at you as a combative post that you must defend.
Quote:
Oh.............and will you please provide proof that he entered the NFL in stage 3? People were saying that, but there were several articles that refuted that claim. So, will you please show us some proof of him entering the NFL in stage 3? Thanks.
What is with you and "proof". Is that word on your "Word of the day calender"?? He is facing a year suspension. Is that not Stage 3?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Again, the NFL, as a whole, would not say anything. That means no one will go on record about this. Every employee is the face of their company while they like it or not. However one person would, most likely, be an anonymous source.
We just love anonymous sources around here LOL
Almost as much as twitter 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26 |
Every day I come in here hoping to have this be over with. This has become so annoying. Honestyl, does he deserve a year suspension....absolutely, if this were a Steeler or Ravens player we would be throwing a hissy at the mere notion he might get off easy.
He deserves his suspension. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Every day I come in here hoping to have this be over with. This has become so annoying. Honestyl, does he deserve a year suspension....absolutely, if this were a Steeler or Ravens player we would be throwing a hissy at the mere notion he might get off easy.
He deserves his suspension. Plain and simple.
I agree, he deserves to be suspended and I think that he will. But if he gets a 6-8 game suspension I would be happy. If he gets off (which I don't think he will) then the fan in me would be happy, but I would know that outside my Browns colored glasses that he deserved a suspension and got off.
His hearing is set for Friday August 1st. So nothing will be decided until then.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26 |
I absolutely want him to get off easy, just because I want to win, not because I think he deserves it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
I absolutely want him to get off easy, just because I want to win, not because I think he deserves it.
 Were on the same page.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
Quote:
He failed two drug tests as a rookie.
He failed another one in his second year.
Based on what, exactly?
If I read the CBA correctly, 2 failed tests as a rookie would have created a 4 game suspension. A second failed test, depending on the time frame, would have caused another suspension.
How are you arriving at this conclusion?
I don't debate that he definitely and absolutely failed drugs tests in college, and that he failed some sort of test that caused the 2 game suspension. The fact that his suspension was reduced to only 2 games seems to indicate that it wasn't for pot, but that there were some sort of extenuating circumstances, because I would expect the NFL to nail a repeat pot offender with the maximum penalty, not to let him off with any reduction in penalty.
I am also not going to debate that he has behaved like a spoiled kid while driving his car, acting liek the rules don't apply to him, and that the DUI was a concern. My concern about the DUI isn't that he got one at the level he did ..... because many people, myself included, have probably driven at 0.09 in their lifetimes. I am quite certain that I have on lame nights at a bar, where I had a couple of drinks waiting for the night to pick up, and seeing it never happen, and so leaving without allowing enough times for the alcohol to work out of my system. However, he should have known better than to go drinking while fighting a drug suspension. He needs to prsent the appearance of being completely clean, and that definitely does not do that. It was a stupid move on his part.
One thing that is for certain: If Gordon does wind up either not being suspended, or is suspended for only a few games, then he almost certainly did not have a positive test recently. It would indicate, fairly decisively, that he did not fail a test, but instead may have missed a test because of unusual circumstances. It's not definitive by any stretch of the imagination .... but it's about the best we'll get.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,848 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,848 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
Where is the proof that he missed a flight and then tested clean the next day? You guys keep making big arguments around the word "if."
WHere is the proof that he didn't miss a flight and then didn't test clean the next day ?
You keep harping on this like you know something the rest of us don't...And you don't.
There is NOTHING wrong with speculating. There have been reports that it's a missed test.. We don't have a clue if it's accurate or not.,
In other words, we don't know jack.... And when I say we.. I MEAN YOU INCLUDED..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
I might be the only Brown's fan in the world who hope he doesn't get off. He needs to learn that he can't just do whatever he wants.
There are about a combined 1000 jokes about the poster's ego/hypocrisy and Manziel in this line, but I won't go there. I'm trying to stay clean myself. I'm in "board rehab" 
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,446 Likes: 16
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,446 Likes: 16 |
The NFL has a PR nightmare on their hands right now , and their Gordon decision could just make things worse no matter what call they make ! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,848 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,848 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
The NFL has a PR nightmare on their hands right now , and their Gordon decision could just make things worse no matter what call they make !
I can see that being the case.
I mean, they have rules, it appears that Gordon broke them or is suspected of breaking them.
On the other hand, having the poster boy for the NFL (Manziel) and the best receiver from last year (gordon) on the field together is a ratings bonanza.
From a purely PR standpoint, I don't know if there is a perfect decision.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
On the other hand, having the poster boy for the NFL (Manziel) and the best receiver from last year (gordon) on the field together is a ratings bonanza.
So you think they are waiting for Pettine to announce a starter before they decide the punishment? 
I think their dilemma is quite simple, if they go light, they are violating their own rules and punishments, if they go harsh, then the call will go out that evidently smoking weed a few times is worse than knocking your fiance unconscious... they really aren't going to be able to make everybody happy with this.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906 |
Are you purposely trying to be hypocritical? Some people are permitted to speculate, but I am not?
Really?
Guys, like I said.............I knew my opinion would be in the minority. If you can't understand the main message of my posts about this situation and only want to focus in one or two statements to present your argument, go ahead and keep deluding yourselves about what is best for the young man and the football team.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611 |
j/c: Per Nathan Zegura via Profootballtalk: Quote:
Interesting RT @ProFootballTalk: Details on Josh Gordon's arguments in his upcoming appeal hearing will be posted very soon at PFT.
https://twitter.com/NathanZegura
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611 |
So if any of this info is true, my guess is the lawyers may want this appeals case to be tried in a public forum. I'm very interested to see what PFT provides.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611 |
Per PFT: Quote:
Still working on story, but bottom line is "A" bottle for Josh Gordon was barely above the limit. "B" bottle was actually BELOW the limit.
https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
above limit of what? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
I don't know how NFL urine collections go, but in other sports they take one sample and pour it into two collection cups. If sample A fails they check sample B.
I don't know if that is enough to get him off entirely but if true it could mean a reduced suspension.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611 |
Quote:
above limit of what?
If I remember correctly, it was collective bargained regarding the amount of pot found in your system warranting league action-- it's not just a pass/ fail test. Players are given a certain amount of leeway before you test positive. I could be wrong but I think this is where the term "limit" is coming from. If anyone has more concrete info on this, please correct me.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/Gordon’s appeal focuses on disparity between “A” and “B” bottle tests Posted by Mike Florio on July 29, 2014, 2:07 PM EDT Getty ImagesWith the Josh Gordon appeal hearing set for Friday and with Gordon hiring (as Adam Schefter reported last night) the same lawyer who helped Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman avoid a four-game suspension for violation of the PED policy in 2012, Gordon presumably has a case that holds more water than the average bong. Gordon possibly does, especially if the same spirit of lenience that helped Ray Rice receive a suspension of only two games for knocking out his fiancée applies in any way to Gordon. Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Gordon landed in Stage III of the program last year as part of a negotiated two-game suspension for the use of cough syrup that contained codeine. Once in Stage III, a player never leaves. And he must pass up to 10 drug tests per month. According to the source, Gordon has passed at least 70 drug tests. One test barely generated a positive. And but for the 50-50 luck of the draw, it would have been a negative. Urine samples routinely are split into two bottles, the “A” bottle and the “B” bottle. If the “A” bottle generates a positive result, the “B” bottle is tested. Amazingly, the “B” bottle doesn’t have to independently show a violation. Instead, the substance abuse policy states that the “‘B’ bottle Test need only show that the substance, revealed in the ‘A’ bottle Test, is evident to the ‘limits of detection’ to confirm the results of the ‘A’ bottle Test.” In English, close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and “B” bottles. For Gordon, the “A” bottle showed a concentration of 16 ng/ml, only one nanogram per milliliter above the limits of 15. The “B” bottle showed a concentration of 13.6 ng/ml — less than the threshold. But because the “A” bottle was labeled “A” and not “B” and because the “B” bottle was labeled “B” and not “A”, the end result is a positive and a minimum one-year banishment from the NFL. Flip the bottles when it’s time to apply the labels, and Gordon isn’t facing a suspension. Setting aside (for now) my lingering concerns about the NFL policing the use of marijuana by players, the Draconian provisions of a program that subjects a player to up to 10 tests per month and will remove a Stage III player from the workforce for at least a full year if he failed a single test over the balance of his career, and the NFL’s apparent unwillingness to subject Colts owner Jim Irsay to this same testing protocol and standard, Josh Gordon will be treated extremely unfairly if the policy is strictly applied to him as it is written. All because the bottle that tested at 16 ng/ml was labeled with an “A and the bottle that tested at 13.6 ng/ml was labeled with a “B”. The NFL clearly got it wrong with Ray Rice. The NFL has a chance to get it right with Josh Gordon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
above limit of what?
Based on ESPN he fail due to marijuana, which means they have a THC limit and in one sample he was above the limit in the other he was below.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
so, this is kind of dumb to me... you can't get it in a urine sample from secondhand, right? Not sure why this would have legs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906 |
All that A and B stuff sounds weird to me. Maybe this will end all the posts dedicated to him missing a flight. Then again, maybe not. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
so, this is kind of dumb to me... you can't get it in a urine sample from secondhand, right? Not sure why this would have legs.
Not unless you were in a small enclosed space that was filled to the brim with smoke.
So this doesn't really fit the Greg Little's comment that the failure was "Beyond Gordon's Control" or something along those lines.
I could see the NFL if they want Gordon on the field that they would reduce the suspension. But like the artilcle said the NFL may want to "get it right" since they missed the boat on Ray Rice.
If this story is true then Gordon failed a test and obviously weed was in his system. By the written rule he should be gone for the year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
J/C
Basically it's a luck of the draw? Why did one sample have a higher concentration that the other?
He passes 70 tests, one sample is positive for THC (by a minute amount), another sample is negative from the same batch (which are totally chosen by random occurrence, and this means he should be suspended for a year? Ray Rice looks like a supervillain compared to this.
Last edited by RocketOptimist; 07/29/14 02:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611 |
j/c
Allegedly, the dude passed 70 tests last year. Damn, that's a lot of peeing in a bottle.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
j/c... so according to cleveland browns daily (Vic Carucci and Nathan Zegura), Gordon came in to the league with one strike against him as terms of entering supplemental draft.
Strike two was the codeine/cough syrup story.
Strike two subjected him to up to 10 tests per month (put him into Stage III).
He passed >70 tests after that.
His third strike is a failed test with the 16 / 13.6 -- A / B bottle, which is an average of 14.8 ng / mL, below the 15 limit.
So it's twice he has run afowl of the NFL rules. He shouldn't have gotten himself to the 10 ng / mL point, however. No idea if this can be affected by secondhand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,341 Likes: 98
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,341 Likes: 98 |
John 3:16 Jesus said "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611 |
Quote:
j/c... so according to cleveland browns daily (Vic Carucci and Nathan Zegura), Gordon came in to the league with one strike against him as terms of entering supplemental draft.
Strike two was the codeine/cough syrup story.
Strike two subjected him to up to 10 tests per month (put him into Stage III).
He passed >70 tests after that.
His third strike is a failed test with the 16 / 13.6 -- A / B bottle, which is an average of 14.8 ng / mL, below the 15 limit.
So it's twice he has run afowl of the NFL rules. He shouldn't have gotten himself to the 10 ng / mL point, however. No idea if this can be affected by secondhand.
I'm listening to the same show as you....what were they saying about other sports testing....something like swimmers need to get above 175 ng to test positive or something like that?
I think the biggest issue here FOR ME is that if one urine sample, divided into two separate tests-- of which one resulted in a pass-- creates doubt in the other test he allegedly failed in. And considering the 70 consecutive pass rate of which only one barely testing anything, I'm guessing the lawyer is gonna argue a failed procedure or doubt because one test, using the same urine cleared him.
Either way, this really confirms for me that he won't be lost for the entire year and will lean on my 4-6 game ban guess. Who knows, maybe he'll be cleared altogether  
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 844 |
Quote:
J/C
Basically it's a luck of the draw? Why did one sample have a higher concentration that the other?
He passes 70 tests, one sample is positive for THC (by a minute amount), another sample is negative from the same batch (which are totally chosen by random occurrence, and this means he should be suspended for a year? Ray Rice looks like a supervillain compared to this.
If they were both filled at the same time, one could be when he started to pee vs one toward the end.
In any case, the lawyer's argument sounds very similar to Clinton arguing what the word "is" means, or "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit". It ignores the fact that the one IS labelled 'A', and it IS above the limit and instead simply attempts to distract ones decision making from those facts.
Love or Hate or be Indifferent to the policy... it is what it is.
The fact that it is present tells me that he likely smoked and tried to play the system, but still had levels that were too high. He gambled and lost.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
j/c
Allegedly, the dude passed 70 tests last year. Damn, that's a lot of peeing in a bottle.
Surprised he had time to smoke weed doing it that often.
Also, the Olympic's threshold for marijuana is 10x greater than the NFL's which reinforces the idea that the NFL is outdated in their drug program.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611 |
Yeah, it's gotta be shown negligence occurred in the testing procedure which led to the two different results. That may be tough, I don't know.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Josh Gordon hearing set for late
July
|
|
