DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum It's official, Gordon suspended for 1 year

Just like players are prohibited from smoking 'ANY' weed.... yet players pass the test if they have smoked and test under the threshold.

I linked to the policy. IIRC it's a little over 20 pages and it's not that hard to understand. For players who are in the substance abuse policy *and* subject to alcohol testing the threshold is .06. If you test over, you fail; if you test under, you pass.

He doesn't want to hear the facts.

Now that just makes no sense. Gordon's reinstatement deal required him to ABSTAIN from any alcohol consumption and to under go periodic testing...

All I can do is link to the actual policy again and provide the most relevant passage:

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/m...icy_9-29-14.pdf



What we are discussing is a violation of the policy while in stage three (page 19) of the intervention program. Most of his past discipline occurred under the 2010 version of this agreement, which among other things had more restrictive testing and harsher punishments for marijuana.

It is very possible that I don't know what I'm talking about and would love to be proven wrong but please show some evidence.

Read the last four lines of your paste... could that pertain to JG?

Gordon pled guilty to his DUI under the terms of the old policy so he could escape the 4 (or more) game suspension that would have accompanied his DUI if it would have been legally settled under the terms of the new DUI policy. It has been reported that he could have NO alcohol in his system at any time during the year the Commissioner prohibited it. The new policy also gives the Commissioner powers to discipline a player who is in the drug intervention program, who also receives a DUI. (In section 2.1)

Anyway, Gordon was subject to the Commissioner's judgment, which was rapidly agreed upon so that he could escape the consequences of his DUI. Could that agreement include a complete prohibition on alcohol use? Of course it could. The "old" CBA drug policy really had no prohibition against alcohol, but allowed the Commissioner fairly broad powers to apply punishment. He barred Gordon from using any alcohol for a year. Gordon did not/could not manage to comply. He is now gone for another 16 games.

In his 1st 4 seasons, Gordon will have missed 29 games because of his drug/alcohol behavior, out of a possible 48. (2 in 2013, plus 10 in 2014, plus the team imposed final game suspension in 2014, and all 16 games in 2015) That is sad, and indicates a fairly major problem, even if he does not want to admit it.

of course it does. its the only reason they have alcohol on the list and give it a pass/fail of .06. For players who are in the substance abuse policy *and* subject to alcohol testing.

dont know why bbrowns32 is saying other wise. well i got a pretty good idea why but i do not want to be mean.......

I was thnking that the last four lines... inparticular the last sentence could indicate that he was allowed zero alcohol... completley prohibited and not the .06 threshold.

It is worded confusingly but it breaks down like this:

Most NFL players: not prohibited from drinking alcohol, not tested for it

Players who are in the intervention program but not prohibited from drinking alcohol: tested for alcohol as part of monitoring, can't be disciplined for it

Players who are forbidden from drinking alcohol due to previous alcohol incident (e.g. DUI): prohibited from drinking alcohol, threshold is .06

The word 'prohibited' confuses things but it is the same with every other drug. Players are prohibited from taking those substances but they still have to test over a threshold to fail a test.

Also look at Josh Gordon's letter and the admission that he had "two beers and two drinks" (whatever that means). As these types of letters are mostly just geared toward getting public support, I would think that if the threshold was indeed 0.00, we would have heard some sob story about how Josh merely swished around some mouthwash before his test.

everything on that pass/fail list is completley prohibited. they did not put that pass/fail .06 in the CBA for nothing did they?

Go ahead and spit it out. Let's see what you got...

go up 7 posts. look im not going to sit here and argue about the cba. its clear that the only reason they had .06 fail/pass was for if a Player’s Treatment Plan explicitly prohibits
alcohol.

Discipline for alcohol use is imposed only if a Player’s
Treatment Plan prohibits alcohol.

now i get you dont have the common sense god gave a pea or the logic to figure out the only reason they would put a pass/fail for alcohol in the cba was for players who are not allowed to drink.

Hmmm....a player is prohibited from drinking alcohol and yet has a pass/fail of o.o6? What on earth am I missing here? You either have alcohol in your system (fail) or you don't (pass). There is no point in discussing this further. And incidentally, thanks for the "common sense" shot; you are now off my Christmas card list...

It is like every drug on the list. Players can have marijuana (thc metabolites, actually) in their system yet, even if it is in their system, below the threshold they pass the test. In fact, not too long ago Josh Gordon was in a similar situation albeit on the wrong end of it.

And pblack has a good point. If most players are neither tested for alcohol nor barred from drinking it, who exactly is the .06 threshold for? It's for those who are banned from drinking alcohol!

There is one thing that you are definitely right on-- that there's no point in discussing this further.

You are correct. End...

Amen to that