• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Gordon suspension reduced to 10, 12 if convicted of DWI

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I'm sure the NFL would be absolutely thrilled with a process that said a suspension must come down within 7 days of the player being notified of a positive result, that any such appeal must be heard within 7 days of that suspension, and that any decision on the appeal must come down within 7 days. Three weeks timeline, and it's all over. They've got their result -- they don't need time to prepare.

It's the union and players who want the time to do all the research, fact-gathering, presentation, and argument. They're the ones who don't want it to be fast, and cut-and-dried, because they'll lose almost every time if that's the case. The NFL has its ducks in a row pretty much as soon as the test results come in. It's the defense that needs the time to prepare.

Bottom line is that, for the most part, everyone is blaming the wrong side for the delay. And if you notice, Gordon's people (as opposed to the Browns) don't seem to be even squeaking about the time it took. Perhaps they know more about who was responsible for the delays than folks on the outside.
 
3. Full agreement on this point. If the NFL were interested in helping the substance abusers they wouldn't go with a cold turkey ban. They can prevent them from playing but don't prevent the teams from helping the player on a personal level.

There's got to be a reason teams pushed for that...right?

My guess is that they foresaw too many problems with keeping contact with a player who was under suspension for a full year. What if the player is injured during that time, especially if the injury comes in the facility? What if the player later claims that he was being pressured by coaches to train/participate in team activities, even though he is not getting paid and is otherwise on his own? Perhaps the union didn't believe that unpaid players shouldn't be subject to team rules/directions while on suspension.

Just sort of spitballin', but it seems odd to me that while everyone is condemning the "no-contact" rule, nobody seems to be inquiring into the reason why the rule exists in the first place.
 
I'm sure there is a reason, not sure what it is.

Maybe they don't want to open the door for selective help. By that I mean players are different and team actions are different depending on those players. For example, the Browns would want to help Gordon maybe on a personal level but they'd be more motivated to help him for football reasons. They want him back on the field ASAP so they will put resources into making that happen. However; if some random guy barely hanging on had this exact same issue as Gordon he'd be cut and that'd be it. Not sure if that's a good enough reason but like Q-tip here, I'm spit balling.
 
While we are talking about Ray Ray... Didn't Big Ben get 6 games for being accused of rape? A dropped case all based on he said she said and 6 games. Ray Ray has some of the clearest video evidence.. Two games.

Head scratching at best.

Clearly it works like this:

Domestic Violence <<< Rape <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Smoking Weed

Perfectly logical.
 
I understand the "players agreed to it" argument, but if you're looking at it from the NFL's point of view... what are you really gaining from this? Thats what I want to know... how is the NFL gaining anything from this archaic policy?
 
I understand the "players agreed to it" argument, but if you're looking at it from the NFL's point of view... what are you really gaining from this? Thats what I want to know... how is the NFL gaining anything from this archaic policy?

Roger Goodell gets to get off on ruling with an iron fist and dishing out whatever punishment happens to amuse him on that given day? He's probably cracking up about giving Rice a two game suspension, knowing full well that, despite the outrage, people won't stop watching the games.
 
I understand the "players agreed to it" argument, but if you're looking at it from the NFL's point of view... what are you really gaining from this? Thats what I want to know... how is the NFL gaining anything from this archaic policy?

It's a horrible policy and it's a feeble argument for someone who doesn't want to actually defend the rationale. No chance the NFLPA came to the table with this, they just agreed. Players have the right to ostracize players like Gordon by agreeing to this policy, so really you can point the finger at the player. I still remain infuriated that this bad faith policy exists, but the blame goes around to more than the lame-duck Commissioner. The NFL is clearly losing this in the court of public opinion.

What's pretty sucky is that Josh is probably really weighing the cost/benefits of taking the legal route... He doesn't have money like the Williams brothers, or a veteran.. He's losing a ton of money through the suspension, lost money hiring a strong legal team for the appeal and still is on the hook with Rosenhaus. Dude is getting a serious reality check right about now.
 
I think Canada is a good idea for him and the Browns should allow him to do it. The fear would be that he gets hurt playing there but the structure of being on a football team and still working at his craft has to be appealing to the Browns. If he's out on the street for a year killing time the odds of him actually staying clean and coming back to the Browns next season have to be ridiculously low.
 
Well thought out plan, Gordon...
 
What's pretty sucky is that Josh is probably really weighing the cost/benefits of taking the legal route... He doesn't have money like the Williams brothers, or a veteran.. He's losing a ton of money through the suspension, lost money hiring a strong legal team for the appeal and still is on the hook with Rosenhaus. Dude is getting a serious reality check right about now.

Oh, if he has as good a legal case as some here seem to believe, he could easily find an attorney to take the case on a contingency basis given the amount of salary he would be losing otherwise.

If he doesn't fight this in court, it's not because he lacks money. It's because he lacks a case with a reasonable shot at winning.
 
I understand the "players agreed to it" argument, but if you're looking at it from the NFL's point of view... what are you really gaining from this? Thats what I want to know... how is the NFL gaining anything from this archaic policy?

What does the NFL gain from a strict "no gambling" policy, which is perfectly legal just as smoking pot is legal in some states? What do they gain from a PED ban? It's all the same thing -- the goal is to protect the integrity of the game and the investment teams make in their players. The league worries about things that have the potential to disrupt the integrity of the game and that investment.

Teams pay players money to play at the best level possible. If a player is abusing drugs, that can affect their preparation and on-field performance. It is impossible to test players every day, and the fact that a player may be mildly impaired or affected by their ingestion of drugs can be difficult to detect and prove. Alcohol use is generally much easier for lay people to detect because it usually leaves an odor on the breath or body. Pot smoking doesn't, so you've got to use urine tests and their bright-line standards.

Most players get tested very rarely -- generally before training camp. They don't get randomly tested during the rest of the offseason. What that means is that most players can probably get away with smoking pot during the offseason as long as it is out of their system before the camp begins. The "wink-wink" is that the NFL really doesn't care about pot smoking if it doesn't affect the game. But in Gordon's case, there was a legitimate reason to worry about his drug use affecting his playing.

The only reason Gordon was subject to more stringent testing was because he did have a past history of pot smoking directly impacting his ability to perform on the field. He was kicked out of programs and unable to play football because of pot smoking. That's why he was a second round pick n the supplemental instead of a first round pick.

So it is only logical for his future employers to want to ensure that pot smoking doesn't adversely impact his pro career. So they put him on a testing regimen that hopefully will dissuade him from engaging in more drug use that could result in the same issue. The standard is set low so as to persuade players not to even try to game the system, or believe they can slip through tests via masking drugs.

None of that may be persuasive, but it would at least be a rational explanation for the NFL's motives. They may be looking at another pro sports league where there are more rumors of players actually playing while hungover or even still buzzed, and decide they don't want to go down that route.
 
Devil's advocate here, but all of that logic is built on the premise that pot smoking does indeed effect his game.
 
Andrew Sharp's take:

---

Josh Gordon Is Gone

It took a month for the decision to be final, but Josh Gordon wasofficially suspended for the season on Wednesday. I wrote about this a month ago and there’s not much more to say — the NFL’s backward drug policy is consistent with everything else that’s backward about the NFL. But Wednesday afternoon someone asked me, “What do you really think of the Josh Gordon situation?”

Just for fun, a couple of final thoughts.

1. The testing process left plenty of room for doubt, but Gordon probably smoked weed.

2. Also, looking at his history, he’s clearly not great at decision-making, so it’s not like he’s blameless here. Both for the decisions that put him in this position, and the weed he (probably) smoked this spring.

3. None of that makes it any less ridiculous that the NFL is suspending him for an entire fucking year. It’s possible for Gordon to be stupid and the NFL to be even stupider. Give him five games, or even eight, and that still sends the exact same message the NFL wants to send. Banning him from the league — and contact with the Browns — hurts everyone involved. It’s adhering to the letter of a collectively bargained drug program that makes no sense. A yearlong suspension for repeat steroid users feels fair; treating marijuana the same as steroids feels insane.

4. That’s why the testing controversy mattered. Not because it proved Gordon was innocent, but because it gave the people running the league (and/or the arbitrator) plenty of leeway to negotiate a reduced suspension to something more reasonable without looking like it was suddenly abandoning the drug penalties altogether.

5. Man, the people comparing this to the Ray Rice situation aren’t exactly wrong, but there are better arguments to have. Compare it to Matt Prater — the guy who was facing the exact same punishment for alcohol and then magically saw his suspension reduced to four games.

6. The NFL doesn’t owe common sense to Gordon, but it would have been a nice change of pace for the rest of us who watch this league operate week after week.

7. The Browns are so screwed.
Last year, Browns QBs threw 9 TDs and 2 INTs when targeting Josh Gordon, and 17 TDs and 18 INTs when targeting all other players.—
Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) August 27, 2014

8. Hopefully Gordon stays out of trouble this year, because the only way this suspension could get more depressing is if it leads to his whole career unraveling.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top