|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
We're all arguing about what SHOULD happen.
The fact is, the league has everything they need to uphold an indefinite ban.
Seems to me like the rule is: If you test positive on "A," we can check "B" for giggles but as long as there's a positive test, you're gone. Conversely, if "A" comes in negatively, we can check "B." And if "B" comes in as a positive, you're gone.
The only chance we have is that Goddell, out of sheer embarrassment (or pity on our franchise) decides to rule outside the letter of the law. And that's what it would be.
As it's written, right or wrong, points to Gordon getting the full year.
Now, he has the best legal team money can buy so (as OJ is my witness) anything goes when those leetches are in the room.
+1
The NFL does have the Ray Rice suspension controversy hanging over their heads right now too. Maybe that pushes them to reduce Gordon's suspension to not look completely moronic. And maybe his legal team can battle enough to get a reduction.
I'm hoping for nothing, but expecting 16 games. Something tells me it will 8 games.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,581
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,581 |
+1 for me, as well.
As moronic as it seems to be, the system is working as designed. Gordon's only real hope is the blowback due to the absurdity of Ray Rice's situation.
If I were Gordon's legal team, I'd cut the crap with the whole second-hand smoke argument, and just tell the NFL that their lives will be a living hell if Gordon gets suspended for longer than Rice. That threat has more weight to it than the whole second-hand smoke line of BS.
I bet the PFT article is the beginning of this strategy.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
pblack...are you impactplaya/Captain Frank/Kendal Storm ghosting again??? Just curious, you have the same posting style.
Good catch.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
]
Sample A was above the threshold, Sample B only needed to show the presence of the substance that Sample A Failed. So in the end he failed and sample B backed up that failure.
So, what you are saying is if sample B had been labeled sample A.......no problem, right?
See, the nfl is in a tough spot on this. By the book - their book - it's cut and dried. In reality, what if sample A had been sample B?
When you consider MLB, the WDA standards, and add in a thug beating his fiancee to unconsciousness....the nfl is in a bad spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,581
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,581 |
Unfortunately, I see this playing out as Gordon getting the full punishment, and the NFL turning around and amending this process because Gordon's situation showed that it was dumb in a number of different ways.
Battered Browns Fan
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is, the league has everything they need to uphold an indefinite ban.
You are probably right, but exactly what is it that they have? I mean, they don't/won't tell us so I was just wondering what you know they have?
Sample A was above the threshold, Sample B only needed to show the presence of the substance that Sample A Failed. So in the end he failed and sample B backed up that failure.
I didn't want to read this entire thread. To be honest, it's fairly boring technical looking stuff. So, tell me, is Sample A and Sample B from Gordon? and if so, how did we get that information?
#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: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301 |
Quote:
Quote:
]
Sample A was above the threshold, Sample B only needed to show the presence of the substance that Sample A Failed. So in the end he failed and sample B backed up that failure.
So, what you are saying is if sample B had been labeled sample A.......no problem, right?
See, the nfl is in a tough spot on this. By the book - their book - it's cut and dried. In reality, what if sample A had been sample B?
When you consider MLB, the WDA standards, and add in a thug beating his fiancee to unconsciousness....the nfl is in a bad spot.
Add to the fact that Goodell (judge/jury/executioner) won't even show up to the appeal because he'll be busy in Canton... It will look reeaaal bad if he drops the hammer.
HERE WE GO BROWNIES! HERE WE GO!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
Quote:
The bigger worry for me with Gordon was the DUI with him knowing he had the suspension hanging over his head. I am happy to learn that he did go to rehab after the Dui and I hope he continues to seek treatment.
Yeah, I didn't like that either. But...I think I've read that this DUI will most likely be reduced to reckless op. since it was barley over the limit, and to think it used to be .10. A man with his money should have no trouble getting this thing reduced. I know, it don't make it right, but I want him in the line-up. I've also read that this DUI will have no bearing on the appeal due on Fri. So, I think Josh's going to be ok.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 13,301 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is, the league has everything they need to uphold an indefinite ban.
You are probably right, but exactly what is it that they have? I mean, they don't/won't tell us so I was just wondering what you know they have?
Sample A was above the threshold, Sample B only needed to show the presence of the substance that Sample A Failed. So in the end he failed and sample B backed up that failure.
I didn't want to read this entire thread. To be honest, it's fairly boring technical looking stuff. So, tell me, is Sample A and Sample B from Gordon? and if so, how did we get that information?
Yes - they're both from the same specimen, just split in half for testing purposes. Info was leaked, presumably by his legal defense.
HERE WE GO BROWNIES! HERE WE GO!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
Quote:
how did we get that information?
ESPN's Adam Schefter first reported that Gordon's team will argue second-hand smoke, and profootballtalk.com's Mike Florio first reported that the lawyers will argue disparity in Gordon's test results.
Quote:
So, tell me, is Sample A and Sample B from Gordon?
When players in the NFL are drug-screened, two different tests are used. Gordon measured 38 nanograms per milliliter of THC on the immunoassay test, above the NFL's threshold of 20, the source said. Most other sports organizations have a 50 cutoff or higher to avoid second-hand smoke issue, the source said.
The second test involves an "A" sample and "B'' sample. If the "A'' sample is above the NFL threshold of 15 nanograms for this particular test, the "B'' sample is tested to confirm it. The source said Gordon measured 16 nanograms on the "A'' sample, just one above the NFL's threshold. He measured 13.63 nanograms on the "B'' sample, below the NFL cutoff.
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is, the league has everything they need to uphold an indefinite ban.
You are probably right, but exactly what is it that they have? I mean, they don't/won't tell us so I was just wondering what you know they have?
Sample A was above the threshold, Sample B only needed to show the presence of the substance that Sample A Failed. So in the end he failed and sample B backed up that failure.
I didn't want to read this entire thread. To be honest, it's fairly boring technical looking stuff. So, tell me, is Sample A and Sample B from Gordon? and if so, how did we get that information?
Are you serious?
No, sample A is from Gordon and sample B is from Bobby the bailiff.
Man, you used to be called Captain Obvious...........but here you come across as Captain Don't have a clue.
Read the thread. If you don't want to read the thread, don't, but don't ask questions like this. I thought you were an employer that routinely did drug tests?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is, the league has everything they need to uphold an indefinite ban.
You are probably right, but exactly what is it that they have? I mean, they don't/won't tell us so I was just wondering what you know they have?
Sample A was above the threshold, Sample B only needed to show the presence of the substance that Sample A Failed. So in the end he failed and sample B backed up that failure.
I didn't want to read this entire thread. To be honest, it's fairly boring technical looking stuff. So, tell me, is Sample A and Sample B from Gordon? and if so, how did we get that information?
Yes - they're both from the same specimen, just split in half for testing purposes. Info was leaked, presumably by his legal defense.
If FreeAgents answer to my question is correct, why would his legal defense leak something that shows he's guilty of committing this infraction.
In essence, we don't REALLY know these are his samples (100% for sure). All we really have is some leaked data from some source.
Like I told Free Agent, he's probably right and I am fairly confident that Gordon is gone for some period of time. But to speculate based on data of dubious origin seems like a silly waste of time.
#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: Mar 2013
Posts: 305
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 305 |
Quote:
If FreeAgents answer to my question is correct, why would his legal defense leak something that shows he's guilty of committing this infraction.
In essence, we don't REALLY know these are his samples (100% for sure). All we really have is some leaked data from some source.
Like I told Free Agent, he's probably right and I am fairly confident that Gordon is gone for some period of time. But to speculate based on data of dubious origin seems like a silly waste of time.
Unless Gordon's legal team knows he is probably going to get a stiff penalty and are essentially "throwing a hail mary" in an effort to get the court of public opinion to put pressure on the NFL. That's all this is. There is no other reason to release this information other than to try and make the NFL look bad if they come down harshly on Gordon. Pretty common tactic I think. I don't think the NFL is going to budge though. Rules are rules and by the book Gordon is gone for a year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
As an educator, I fully understand that society doesn't believe in accountability much anymore, but I think that is a huge mistake and that we are instilling the wrong values in our children.
Food for thought bro. If the NFL got two different results from the same sample shouldn't they have be held accountable for their results?
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
Quote:
Quote:
As an educator, I fully understand that society doesn't believe in accountability much anymore, but I think that is a huge mistake and that we are instilling the wrong values in our children.
Food for thought bro. If the NFL got two different results from the same sample shouldn't they have be held accountable for their results?
food for thought bro. he failed his first test. the screen test. and then went on to fail a total different test. test A. most business would have stopped right there but the nfl wants to be sure about the drug he failed so did test b. the real question is shouldn't Gordon be held accountable.
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
No, the REAL fact is, even at 16 ng per milliliter, no business would even think twice about hiring him.
And here's the kicker - had vial A been labeled as vial B, none of this is even discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
Quote:
No, the REAL fact is, even at 16 ng per milliliter, no business would even think twice about hiring him.
And here's the kicker - had vial A been labeled as vial B, none of this is even discussed.
here is the real kicker. if he would have passed his screen test there would be no a and b.
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,229
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,229 |
Quote:
Quote:
No, the REAL fact is, even at 16 ng per milliliter, no business would even think twice about hiring him.
And here's the kicker - had vial A been labeled as vial B, none of this is even discussed.
here is the real kicker. if he would have passed his screen test there would be no a and b.
Here's the real kicker...
most companies would tell the person to retest in a few weeks so they could hire them. (if they really wanted them)
Hunter + Dart = This is the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No, the REAL fact is, even at 16 ng per milliliter, no business would even think twice about hiring him.
And here's the kicker - had vial A been labeled as vial B, none of this is even discussed.
here is the real kicker. if he would have passed his screen test there would be no a and b.
Here's the real kicker...
most companies would tell the person to retest in a few weeks so they could hire them. (if they really wanted them)
yea. doesn't matter what business you are in. if you are good then exceptions are made. when its non union its easy. when union is there not so easy. guess what. Gordon is in the union lol.
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212 |
Quote:
And here's the kicker - had vial A been labeled as vial B, none of this is even discussed.
just a crazy turn of events- isn't it. that is the browns luck in a nutshell.
I hope some common sense prevails in this situation. Its sad that Gordon put himself in the line of fire, but these drug tests should be accurate- and that is a big problem here. Throw in the argument that the NFL said second hand exposure would not be punished and I really think Gordon has a strong chance of getting another chance.
I am surprised the NFLPA actually agreed to these parameters on marijuana testing. It seems logical that there would be some consistency among the professional sports....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449 |
I'll be shocked if Josh gets off. Happy, but shocked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is, the league has everything they need to uphold an indefinite ban.
You are probably right, but exactly what is it that they have? I mean, they don't/won't tell us so I was just wondering what you know they have?
Sample A was above the threshold, Sample B only needed to show the presence of the substance that Sample A Failed. So in the end he failed and sample B backed up that failure.
I didn't want to read this entire thread. To be honest, it's fairly boring technical looking stuff. So, tell me, is Sample A and Sample B from Gordon? and if so, how did we get that information?
When you pee in the cup, first they temp the sample to make sure it came from your body. Once that is done, the sample is divided between 2 cups, and sealed. The person being tested then signs his name over both labels, so they cannot be opened without breaking that seal.
The 2 samples should test at nearly identical levels, because they are the same sample, just split in half. It's like testing the amount of sugar in a cup of Kool Aid. You take one cup of Kool Aid, then split that cup into 2 samples. Those 2 samples should contain the same "ingredients".
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: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
]
Sample A was above the threshold, Sample B only needed to show the presence of the substance that Sample A Failed. So in the end he failed and sample B backed up that failure.
So, what you are saying is if sample B had been labeled sample A.......no problem, right?
See, the nfl is in a tough spot on this. By the book - their book - it's cut and dried. In reality, what if sample A had been sample B?
When you consider MLB, the WDA standards, and add in a thug beating his fiancee to unconsciousness....the nfl is in a bad spot.
Add to the fact that Goodell (judge/jury/executioner) won't even show up to the appeal because he'll be busy in Canton... It will look reeaaal bad if he drops the hammer.
The encouraging [art, if you care about Gordon playing for the Browns this coming year, is that Goodell agreed to allow Gordon's appeal. He has appeals for players in the past. At least Gordon has an agreement to have his appeal heard ...... so that's a plus for him. I believe that there is often a hearing officer who hears the case in place of the Commissioner.
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: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
What part of two different results from the SAME SAMPLE don't you get? You can't be that dense.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
If FreeAgents answer to my question is correct, why would his legal defense leak something that shows he's guilty of committing this infraction.
In essence, we don't REALLY know these are his samples (100% for sure). All we really have is some leaked data from some source.
Like I told Free Agent, he's probably right and I am fairly confident that Gordon is gone for some period of time. But to speculate based on data of dubious origin seems like a silly waste of time.
Unless Gordon's legal team knows he is probably going to get a stiff penalty and are essentially "throwing a hail mary" in an effort to get the court of public opinion to put pressure on the NFL. That's all this is. There is no other reason to release this information other than to try and make the NFL look bad if they come down harshly on Gordon. Pretty common tactic I think. I don't think the NFL is going to budge though. Rules are rules and by the book Gordon is gone for a year.
Call me crazy, but if you are going to throw a Hail Mary, it's to WIN the game, not to lose.
#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: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
What part of two different results from the SAME SAMPLE don't you get? You can't be that dense.
Do you believe that those are Gordons samples?
#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: Nov 2006
Posts: 98
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 98 |
j/c Gordon’s appeal is indeed all or nothing Posted by Mike Florio on July 30, 2014, 5:29 PM EDT Cleveland Browns v St. Louis Rams 8-8-2013 Getty Images Despite a belief in some league circles that the person designated to handle the appeal of Browns receiver Josh Gordon’s one-year suspension can split the proverbial baby by imposing a suspension somewhere between zero and 16 games, the NFL characterizes the substance-abuse policy in a way that makes clear the absence of discretion. “The disciplinary penalties were negotiated by the NFLPA and NFL more than 20 years ago and there has never been a proposal to change them,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy tells PFT via email. “When they were first established, the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations. On appeal, the hearing officer’s responsibility is to determine whether the violation was established and, if so, he is bound by the agreed-upon sanctions.” For players in Stage III of the program, a positive test automatically triggers a one-year suspension. For Gordon, then, only two options exist: full-year suspension or no suspension at all. If the terms of the policy are applied as written, Gordon could indeed be facing a one-year suspension, no matter how unfair or heavy-handed or otherwise wrong. Or maybe the hearing officer will, consciously or otherwise, broaden the lens and consider the reaction to a one-year suspension for Gordon versus a mere two-game suspension for Ray Rice and his far more heinous conduct. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/gordons-appeal-is-indeed-all-or-nothing/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Quote:
What part of two different results from the SAME SAMPLE don't you get? You can't be that dense.
Do you believe that those are Gordons samples?
Yes they are Gordon's samples. He pees in a cup. They pour the contents into two sealable containers. Gordon has to sign the seal. The seal is put on both containers. One the the containers is marked A the other B.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
j/c
Gordon’s appeal is indeed all or nothing
Posted by Mike Florio on July 30, 2014, 5:29 PM EDT
Cleveland Browns v St. Louis Rams 8-8-2013 Getty Images
Despite a belief in some league circles that the person designated to handle the appeal of Browns receiver Josh Gordon’s one-year suspension can split the proverbial baby by imposing a suspension somewhere between zero and 16 games, the NFL characterizes the substance-abuse policy in a way that makes clear the absence of discretion.
“The disciplinary penalties were negotiated by the NFLPA and NFL more than 20 years ago and there has never been a proposal to change them,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy tells PFT via email. “When they were first established, the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations. On appeal, the hearing officer’s responsibility is to determine whether the violation was established and, if so, he is bound by the agreed-upon sanctions.”
For players in Stage III of the program, a positive test automatically triggers a one-year suspension.
For Gordon, then, only two options exist: full-year suspension or no suspension at all.
If the terms of the policy are applied as written, Gordon could indeed be facing a one-year suspension, no matter how unfair or heavy-handed or otherwise wrong. Or maybe the hearing officer will, consciously or otherwise, broaden the lens and consider the reaction to a one-year suspension for Gordon versus a mere two-game suspension for Ray Rice and his far more heinous conduct.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/gordons-appeal-is-indeed-all-or-nothing/
One question for Mike Florio. If it's all or nothing for substance abuse how did Josh get his suspension reduces last year?
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
Quote:
j/c
Gordon’s appeal is indeed all or nothing
Posted by Mike Florio on July 30, 2014, 5:29 PM EDT
Cleveland Browns v St. Louis Rams 8-8-2013 Getty Images
Despite a belief in some league circles that the person designated to handle the appeal of Browns receiver Josh Gordon’s one-year suspension can split the proverbial baby by imposing a suspension somewhere between zero and 16 games, the NFL characterizes the substance-abuse policy in a way that makes clear the absence of discretion.
“The disciplinary penalties were negotiated by the NFLPA and NFL more than 20 years ago and there has never been a proposal to change them,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy tells PFT via email. “When they were first established, the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations. On appeal, the hearing officer’s responsibility is to determine whether the violation was established and, if so, he is bound by the agreed-upon sanctions.”
For players in Stage III of the program, a positive test automatically triggers a one-year suspension.
For Gordon, then, only two options exist: full-year suspension or no suspension at all.
If the terms of the policy are applied as written, Gordon could indeed be facing a one-year suspension, no matter how unfair or heavy-handed or otherwise wrong. Or maybe the hearing officer will, consciously or otherwise, broaden the lens and consider the reaction to a one-year suspension for Gordon versus a mere two-game suspension for Ray Rice and his far more heinous conduct.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/gordons-appeal-is-indeed-all-or-nothing/
One question for Mike Florio. If it's all or nothing for substance abuse how did Josh get his suspension reduces last year?
Different stage of the substance abuse policy.
Stage 3 is a mandatory 1 year minimum suspension. This could be a case of guilty or innocent being the only 2 possible outcomes, and in that case, a mandatory minimum one year suspension ..... or no punishment at all.
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: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
Quote:
What part of two different results from the SAME SAMPLE don't you get? You can't be that dense.
what part of two totally different tests don't you get? cant you read?
Last edited by pblack18707; 07/31/14 07:36 AM.
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Yes, they ran 2 different tests ...... one of them on 2 halves of the same sample, which may have produced different results. The other test throws some doubt into the whole mess.
We'll know soon enough. Tomorrow is the 1st.
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 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Quote:
Quote:
What part of two different results from the SAME SAMPLE don't you get? You can't be that dense.
what part of two totally different tests don't you get? cant you read?
A 15% disparity between 2 tests that's designed to measure something to the nano-degree shows that the testing procedures aren't very accurate. Seeing that the A sample came back only barely above the limit, it's quite argue-able that it could be wrong.
It's a shame he put himself in this position but the defense has a real case on the accuracy here.
If nothing else, the NFL and NFLPA have to find a better way to do this and the scrutiny of public opinion will put pressure on them to do so. Gordon could and up being the poster child for both dumb players who push the limits and bad testing procedures.
But I highly doubt they change the rules for him right now.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
“The disciplinary penalties were negotiated by the NFLPA and NFL more than 20 years ago and there has never been a proposal to change them,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy tells PFT via email. “When they were first established, the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations. On appeal, the hearing officer’s responsibility is to determine whether the violation was established and, if so, he is bound by the agreed-upon sanctions.”
Oh boy. Gordon is toast for the year and the NFL is using the opportunity to paint the NFLPA as the bad guys. No way they miss that opportunity.
I'm thinking Gordon's hearing was pushed so far back because it was so juicy and high profile they knew it would stay in the news, like making the draft in May.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,058
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,058 |
j/c
Journalists are now reporting that the meeting will take place sometime next week...not tomorrow.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Finally....................a logical post about this situation. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
j/c
Gordon’s appeal is indeed all or nothing
Posted by Mike Florio on July 30, 2014, 5:29 PM EDT
Cleveland Browns v St. Louis Rams 8-8-2013 Getty Images
Despite a belief in some league circles that the person designated to handle the appeal of Browns receiver Josh Gordon’s one-year suspension can split the proverbial baby by imposing a suspension somewhere between zero and 16 games, the NFL characterizes the substance-abuse policy in a way that makes clear the absence of discretion.
“The disciplinary penalties were negotiated by the NFLPA and NFL more than 20 years ago and there has never been a proposal to change them,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy tells PFT via email. “When they were first established, the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations. On appeal, the hearing officer’s responsibility is to determine whether the violation was established and, if so, he is bound by the agreed-upon sanctions.”
For players in Stage III of the program, a positive test automatically triggers a one-year suspension.
For Gordon, then, only two options exist: full-year suspension or no suspension at all.
If the terms of the policy are applied as written, Gordon could indeed be facing a one-year suspension, no matter how unfair or heavy-handed or otherwise wrong. Or maybe the hearing officer will, consciously or otherwise, broaden the lens and consider the reaction to a one-year suspension for Gordon versus a mere two-game suspension for Ray Rice and his far more heinous conduct.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/gordons-appeal-is-indeed-all-or-nothing/
One question for Mike Florio. If it's all or nothing for substance abuse how did Josh get his suspension reduces last year?
Different stage of the substance abuse policy.
Stage 3 is a mandatory 1 year minimum suspension. This could be a case of guilty or innocent being the only 2 possible outcomes, and in that case, a mandatory minimum one year suspension ..... or no punishment at all.
But that's not what the article said. It said "The disciplinary penalties were negotiated by the NFLPA and NFL more than 20 years ago and there has never been a proposal to change them,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy tells PFT via email. “When they were first established, the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations. On appeal, the hearing officer’s responsibility is to determine whether the violation was established and, if so, he is bound by the agreed-upon sanctions.”" In no way does that say it only applies to Stage 3.
So that means Stage 2 has a "Mandatory" punishment as well. Gordon was suspended for the "Mandatory" punishment and then they reduced it. They can do the same here as well if they choose to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
No, as PDR posted the info earlier, a stage 2 suspension for prescription related violation can be reduced if stage one entry was not prescription drug related.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,828
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,828 |
Quote:
Quote:
“The disciplinary penalties were negotiated by the NFLPA and NFL more than 20 years ago and there has never been a proposal to change them,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy tells PFT via email. “When they were first established, the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations. On appeal, the hearing officer’s responsibility is to determine whether the violation was established and, if so, he is bound by the agreed-upon sanctions.”
Oh boy. Gordon is toast for the year and the NFL is using the opportunity to paint the NFLPA as the bad guys. No way they miss that opportunity.
I'm thinking Gordon's hearing was pushed so far back because it was so juicy and high profile they knew it would stay in the news, like making the draft in May.
I'm actually hoping that deep down, the NFL is looking for/hoping for/arranging for some leniency for Gordon.
They no doubt realize that with everything going on that...........
1. Irsay.
2. Rice.
3. The possibility of 2nd hand "medication". 
4. 2 diff results from the same "pee guy" pee.
5. It's avail and sitting on store shelves like loaves of bread are in 2 states and Brain Surgeons are prescribing in in 20ish others.
6. Etc, etc.
...........even though they are the "ALMIGHTY NFL" they are going to look, to most people, a little rediculous suspending Gordon for a whole year.
I just hope that "the fix is already in".
NFL: "Eh, due to 2 diff(bottles A and B) test results no matter by the slightest of margins, etc, etc".
Although Imo no matter if/when he comes back imo he won't be "a lastin too long".  There just ain't an ounce of support "WHATSOEVER" in this guys private life.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Josh Gordon continued
|
|
