What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

WR Josh Gordon, KC (2 Viewers)

With all the backlash that has just accompanied the soft Ray Rice suspension, I wonder if the NFL will be hesitant to throw the book at Gordon.

 
I apologize to the fans of the Cleveland Browns but I do not give them the benefit of the doubt in doing silly things. The results are wins on the field and this re-incarnation of the old Browns turned Ravens has been one stinking pile of expansion mess after the next.

To even believe that they have inside information or could be smart enough to know that because Gordon is suspended for the year or is about to be once his appeal is heard, par for the course with this new owner of theirs. This guy has a skeleton closet that would make Elvira jealous.

It would really shock the football community at large if Cleveland was running Gordon with the 1st and 2nd team all the way to the bitter end of this fiasco? That would just be the straw that broke the camel's back on this collection of great drafts, terrific free agent signings, playoff appearances, development of talent, with that type of track history over the last 15+ years, it would come as a shock to see Josh Gordon out there running around at practice right now?

Nothing this organization does surprises me and until they prove otherwise I find it rather foolish to give them any credit for being one step ahead of anyone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ketamine Dreams said:
wadegarrett said:
Ketamine Dreams said:
With all the backlash that has just accompanied the soft Ray Rice suspension, I wonder if the NFL will be hesitant to throw the book at Gordon.
Click to expand...
Rice's suspension comes from the Commissioner.

Gordon's suspension comes from the CBA.

Two totally different things.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I had no idea.
Click to expand...
They're both CBA. One's the substance abuse policy one's the personal conduct policy, both sets of suspensions come from goodell and he has leeway for both.

 
Azhais said:
Ketamine Dreams said:
wadegarrett said:
Ketamine Dreams said:
With all the backlash that has just accompanied the soft Ray Rice suspension, I wonder if the NFL will be hesitant to throw the book at Gordon.
Click to expand...
Rice's suspension comes from the Commissioner.

Gordon's suspension comes from the CBA.

Two totally different things.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I had no idea.
Click to expand...
They're both CBA. One's the substance abuse policy one's the personal conduct policy, both sets of suspensions come from goodell and he has leeway for both.
Click to expand...
Correct, but misleading. There are actual policies for violations of anabolic steroids and recreational drugs (I believe 28 and 32 pages, respectively) that delineate Stages in the program to include fines amounts, suspension lengths, etc. There might be some leeway the commissioner can have, but by and large, each violation has a resulting outcome that is clearly defined. No such detailing of enforcement is detailed under the Personal Conduct Policy.

 
IMO if Gordon gets leniency the NFL might as well throw the whole policy out of the window...The perception will be star players get star treatment, while your fringe players get the shaft.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
IMO if Gordon gets leniency the NFL might as well throw the whole policy out of the window...The perception will be star players get star treatment, while your fringe players get the shaft.
Click to expand...
Im not so sure leniency is the right choice of words.

Since @ the 2014 Draft, Im thinking everyone from stranger to closest friend has said something like " Word on the street is your done, and maybe for good"

Id almost be willin to say Gordon has the premise to sue the NFL for pain and suffering IF he don't get at least X amt of games (very little dispelling of rumor/slander in the media) for what could be a missed test. Supposed to be innocent until..

 
Concept Coop said:
Just wanted to point out that Soulfly asked for my Paypal in order to make good on our bet, should I win. I asked him to forget about it as it was a silly attempt to stroke my ego at the time. He's caught a lot of flack in this thread, but he was willing to follow through, and shouldn't be questioned on that front. :banned:
Click to expand...
Maybe he was just trying to hack your account?

 
Dismattle said:
Ditka Butkus said:
IMO if Gordon gets leniency the NFL might as well throw the whole policy out of the window...The perception will be star players get star treatment, while your fringe players get the shaft.
Click to expand...
Im not so sure leniency is the right choice of words.

Since @ the 2014 Draft, Im thinking everyone from stranger to closest friend has said something like " Word on the street is your done, and maybe for good"

Id almost be willin to say Gordon has the premise to sue the NFL for pain and suffering IF he don't get at least X amt of games (very little dispelling of rumor/slander in the media) for what could be a missed test. Supposed to be innocent until..
Click to expand...
Slander is deliberately saying something that the person knows to be untrue, and with public figures like Gordon, it is notoriously difficult to win slander judgments. Besides, if media outlets were slandering him, why would Gordon sue the NFL?

Also, "innocent until proven guilty" applies only to criminal courts. It has no bearing at all on Josh Gordon, who is not being charged with any crime, (well, other than his DUI, where he still maintains a presumption of innocence should he choose to challenge that in court.)

 
steveski said:
Concept Coop said:
Just wanted to point out that Soulfly asked for my Paypal in order to make good on our bet, should I win. I asked him to forget about it as it was a silly attempt to stroke my ego at the time. He's caught a lot of flack in this thread, but he was willing to follow through, and shouldn't be questioned on that front. :banned:
Click to expand...
Maybe he was just trying to hack your account?
Click to expand...
Ha ha. Last year wasn't my best, in terms of FF winnings--my primary use of PP. Not sure what he'd do with 60-70 bucks.

 
This is the best melodrama in the NFL right now. Funny that the two biggest stories of the offseason both center on the Browns and offseason partying. It's like they are trying to become the Bengals of 4 years ago.

 
Wow, real news.

Last year CB Richard Sherman completely beat his Adderall wrap. Not because he was innocent but because the NFL screwed up its testing process.

Many court cases are won or lost due to procedure not whether or not the person was innocent or guilty.

Seems like the league screwed up.

If Richard Sherman beat his Adderall case due to procedural issues then its possible Josh could skate.

 
Bracie Smathers said:
Wow, real news.

Last year CB Richard Sherman completely beat his Adderall wrap. Not because he was innocent but because the NFL screwed up its testing process.

Many court cases are won or lost due to procedure not whether or not the person was innocent or guilty.

Seems like the league screwed up.

If Richard Sherman beat his Adderall case due to procedural issues then its possible Josh could skate.
Click to expand...
Hey hey hey

 
Gordon’s appeal focuses on disparity between “A” and “B” bottle tests

Posted by Mike Florio on July 29, 2014, 2:07 PM EDT

LA8917-001 Getty Images

With 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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad said:
Dismattle said:
Ditka Butkus said:
IMO if Gordon gets leniency the NFL might as well throw the whole policy out of the window...The perception will be star players get star treatment, while your fringe players get the shaft.
Click to expand...
Im not so sure leniency is the right choice of words.

Since @ the 2014 Draft, Im thinking everyone from stranger to closest friend has said something like " Word on the street is your done, and maybe for good"

Id almost be willin to say Gordon has the premise to sue the NFL for pain and suffering IF he don't get at least X amt of games (very little dispelling of rumor/slander in the media) for what could be a missed test. Supposed to be innocent until..
Click to expand...
Slander is deliberately saying something that the person knows to be untrue, and with public figures like Gordon, it is notoriously difficult to win slander judgments. Besides, if media outlets were slandering him, why would Gordon sue the NFL?

Also, "innocent until proven guilty" applies only to criminal courts. It has no bearing at all on Josh Gordon, who is not being charged with any crime, (well, other than his DUI, where he still maintains a presumption of innocence should he choose to challenge that in court.)
Click to expand...
The point was made by a former team-mate that the Public doesn't know all the facts. But yet the Public has for the most part already decided the punishment, while the NFL has stood by watching the free publicity.

Hey Im just providing my two cents I know it doesn't fit the majority My actual point was the added stress that takes x amt of days off your Life (Divorce / Death theres many things that have stats that show the effect) Josh could get no fines or Suspension, but it wasn't really all that great of an experience for a 23 yr old man (who provides are entertainment)

p.s. It used to be a DUI meant you didn't come up w @ $5,000 min. from what Ive been told.

 
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.

Flip the bottles when it’s time to apply the labels, and Gordon isn’t facing a suspension.
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder how many of the 70 tests that he just got lucky on.

 
cstu said:
Gordon’s appeal focuses on disparity between “A” and “B” bottle tests

Posted by Mike Florio on July 29, 2014, 2:07 PM EDT

LA8917-001 Getty Images

With 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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My guess is there is no bottle "A" or "B". If either bottle tests over the limit and the other bottle shows the same substance, even if under the limit, the rule still applies.

 
If that report is true then the league screwed up and they can't suspend him if they messed up the testing process.

Also we are talking about Josh Gordon passing 70 tests and the only one he failed was one they screwed up?

Seems like a clear cut case of a false positive.

The leage has to change the low thresholds which is ten-times lower than legal thresholds.

This story got leaked days before the league set its deadline for a reason.

Seems like they are backtracking and since they have previously announced they plan to change their substance abuse policy this would seem like the perfect time to do so.

 
So for the crowd that painted Gordon like a Cheech and Chong character, take a step back, dude passed 70 tests.

I still think he gets suspended, not sure how long, seems like a stretch to make it 16 games.

 
Bracie Smathers said:
If that report is true then the league screwed up and they can't suspend him if they messed up the testing process.

Also we are talking about Josh Gordon passing 70 tests and the only one he failed was one they screwed up?

Seems like a clear cut case of a false positive.

The leage has to change the low thresholds which is ten-times lower than legal thresholds.

This story got leaked days before the league set its deadline for a reason.

Seems like they are backtracking and since they have previously announced they plan to change their substance abuse policy this would seem like the perfect time to do so.
Click to expand...
Nope, that how they do it.

 
LarryAllen said:
cstu said:
Gordon’s appeal focuses on disparity between “A” and “B” bottle tests

Posted by Mike Florio on July 29, 2014, 2:07 PM EDT

LA8917-001 Getty Images

With 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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My guess is there is no bottle "A" or "B". If either bottle tests over the limit and the other bottle shows the same substance, even if under the limit, the rule still applies.
Click to expand...
This is my understanding as well. It is possible they screwed up the samples but I'm not sure how that process works.
 
Even when using a cutoff level of 20 ng/ml (Table 3.) or GC/MS (Table 4.), the detection window only exceeded four days in two of the six individuals who smoked the low dose cigarette. After a high dose cigarette, the last detectable positive was at 149.5 hours ( 6 days) for one individual, but most fell between 2.5 days and 3.5 days.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Table 4. DETECTION TIME RANGES at GC/MS 15 ng/ml CUTOFFType of cigarette: 	Last consecutive pos. 	Last positiveLow dose cigarette 	8.0 to 68.5 hours 	8.0 to 68.5 hoursHigh dose cigarette 	4 to 78.4 hours 	57.0 to 122.3 hours
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bracie Smathers said:
If that report is true then the league screwed up and they can't suspend him if they messed up the testing process.

Also we are talking about Josh Gordon passing 70 tests and the only one he failed was one they screwed up?

Seems like a clear cut case of a false positive.

The leage has to change the low thresholds which is ten-times lower than legal thresholds.

This story got leaked days before the league set its deadline for a reason.

Seems like they are backtracking and since they have previously announced they plan to change their substance abuse policy this would seem like the perfect time to do so.
Click to expand...
What is the evidence that the league screwed up?

 
Rotoworld:

Josh Gordon - WR - Browns

A source informed Profootballtalk that suspended WR Josh Gordon's failed drug test barely generated a positive, and it would have been a negative had luck been on Gordon's side.

Gordon was summoned for a urine sample. Those samples are split into two bottles, one marked "A" and the other "B." It's completely random which one is marked "A" and which is labeled "B." "A" is tested first, and if it generates a positive test, then "B" is tested. The limit is 15 nanograms-per-milliliter. Gordon's "A" bottle showed a concentration of 16 ng/ml, while his "B" registered a 13.6 ng/ml. The result was a failed test. If urine sample handlers would have by chance marked the "A" bottle "B" and the "B" bottle "A," then Gordon would be free to play. Gordon is appealing the ban, and his hearing will be held on Friday. There seems to be a decent chance he wins.

Source: Profootballtalk on NBC Sports Jul 29 - 2:21 PM
Click to expand...
 
How are these bottles split? Does he pee in each bottle separately or does the guy taking the sample 'split' the bottles after Gordon fills one?

Seems kinda like a problem if the guy handling the samples is responsible for the split... Was there any spillage of the hot pee? Would that affect the concentration levels?

At least there is some news now

 
Bracie Smathers said:
If that report is true then the league screwed up and they can't suspend him if they messed up the testing process.

Also we are talking about Josh Gordon passing 70 tests and the only one he failed was one they screwed up?

Seems like a clear cut case of a false positive.

The leage has to change the low thresholds which is ten-times lower than legal thresholds.

This story got leaked days before the league set its deadline for a reason.

Seems like they are backtracking and since they have previously announced they plan to change their substance abuse policy this would seem like the perfect time to do so.
Click to expand...
The article doesn't say that the league screwed up at all, and either way, Gordon had weed in his system, knowing that he was probably going to be tested.Also, as has been mentioned time and again, the NFL and the NFLPA have been negotiating a change in the recreational drug policy since 2011. The hang up is that the players aren't willing to add HGH testing as a trade off for a more lenient policy on street drugs. It's a political issue between the league and the players, and it's not going to be resolved anytime soon. The league certainly isn't going to randomly cave in and retroactively go light on Gordon after three years of negotiations for the heck of it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess I'm not following.

If a test of Bottle A is positive, they then test Bottle B to confirm that result, no?

Wouldn't the negative result of Bottle B, invalidate the positive result of Bottle A if this scenario is correct?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless the specific wording is that both bottles have to be above to trigger a suspension, then wouldn't the hammer come down?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

greenmountaingoat
Ainias Smith-WR- Eagles
Replies
12
Views
644
need2know
need2know
JohnnyU
WR Trey Palmer, TB
Replies
39
Views
2K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
creepythinman
True League Winners - Upgrading the Playoff Roster
Replies
25
Views
1K
creepythinman
creepythinman

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top