Gordon suspension reduced to 10, 12 if convicted of DWI

[spydy13]

Sooo..... Do the Browns lose a year of control for the 10 gamer? That'd be terrible luck to get him back for 6 games, but lose a year of control over 2 games.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/09/josh_gordon_pleads_guilty_to_d.html#incart_2box

"If he returns for those last six games, beginning Nov. 23, his 2014 campaign will count as an accrued season, and he'll be eligible for free agency after the 2015 season, as originally scheduled.

If he gets the two more games for the DWI, he'll play in four games and won't have an accrued season (minimum of six). In that case, he wouldn't be eligible for free agency until after the 2016 season."

 

[MoFlo]

That's what I was asking. So, this is for sure?

Well, it hasn't officially been announced whether he'll get the additional 2 games or not, but if he does get the 2 extra games, then yes, he won't be a FA until after '16.

 

[shoes22]

I hope he does get suspended an additional 2 games, even if it means the difference of making the playoffs this year or not. Having him for an additional 16 games in 2016 is well worth that price.

 

[OptimusPrime]

The problem is if they tossed out Gordon's 2013 league year test, then they'd be risking a fair representation claim from every player who fell into that 15-35 ng hole in past years. There was an article last week that some teams were going to go back as far as 2011 to get those reconsidered if that happened, because players have been moved into the program, and up the various stages, based on positive results in past years. They needed to limit it to 2014 league year positive tests to have a bright line, defensible basis for excluding some results and not others.

Then suspend Gordon for the full year.

 

[MalTalm]

I hope he does get suspended an additional 2 games, even if it means the difference of making the playoffs this year or not. Having him for an additional 16 games in 2016 is well worth that price.

I'd much rather have a playoffs appearance now, who knows what will happen to this team in 2 years?

 

[SixPACK]

I'd much rather have a playoffs appearance now, who knows what will happen to this team in 2 years?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Then suspend Gordon for the full year.

That would mean no retroactivity at all for the new penalties that were just signed. And the problem with that is that it means you'd have two different systems/penalty standards within the same league year. So identical conduct during the same football season nets two different results. From a competitive standpoint, I can see why the league didn't want that.

Also, it was in the union's interest to get the retroactivity as early as possible to benefit its members. So you had the union that wanted retroactivity, and the league that wanted to have a consistent policy for the entire league year. Therefore, retroactivity to the beginning of the league year made sense for both sides.

 

[OptimusPrime]

That would mean no retroactivity at all for the new penalties that were just signed. And the problem with that is that it means you'd have two different systems/penalty standards within the same league year. So identical conduct during the same football season nets two different results. From a competitive standpoint, I can see why the league didn't want that.

If the policy is retroactive then Gordon passed his drug test, so he should not be suspended at all. If it's not then suspend him under the old policy. If part of it is retroactive and part of it isn't then they are just fucking the Browns, plain and simple.

 

[Jack Brickman]

It really should be all or nothing. Ten games is just stupid and arbitrary. Either both the test and the punishment should be retroactive or neither should. Giving him the retroactive punishment for a test he would have retroactively passed is about the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If the policy is retroactive then Gordon passed his drug test, so he should not be suspended at all. If it's not then suspend him under the old policy. If part of it is retroactive and part of it isn't then they are just fucking the Browns, plain and simple.

It is retroactive to the beginning of the league year only. They didn't make it retroactive to last year, or the years before that, for reasons I explained.

 

[OptimusPrime]

It is retroactive to the beginning of the league year only. They didn't make it retroactive to last year, or the years before that, for reasons I explained.

Great, then he should be suspended the whole season. Unless the league wants Gordon to hit free agency a year earlier.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It really should be all or nothing. Ten games is just stupid and arbitrary. Either both the test and the punishment should be retroactive or neither should. Giving him the retroactive punishment for a test he would have retroactively passed is about the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

They are both retroactive to the beginning of the league year. You might think that's stupid, but it's not arbitrary, as in they just picked a date out of a hat. The problem is that if they overturn Gordon's positive result, which was during the 2013 league year, they'd open it up to every other player with a testing result in the 15-35 ng. range who was penalized during the 2013 league year as well.

What I find so ironic about this is the complaint that "they're picking on Josh Gordon in particular", when you claim you'd have been fine with them penalizing him more severely. In which case, there would have been twice the bitching, because people then would have said "why is Josh the only guy penalized in the 2014 league year who didn't get penalized under the new system."

 

[Jack Brickman]

They are both retroactive to the beginning of the league year. You might think that's stupid, but it's not arbitrary, as in they just picked a date out of a hat. The problem is that if they overturn Gordon's positive result, which was during the 2013 league year, they'd open it up to every other player with a testing result in the 15-35 ng. range who was penalized during the 2013 league year as well.

What I find so ironic about this is the complaint that "they're picking on Josh Gordon in particular", when you claim you'd have been fine with them penalizing him more severely. In which case, there would have been twice the bitching, because people then would have said "why is Josh the only guy penalized in the 2014 league year who didn't get penalized under the new system."

The simple answer would be to apply the rule to anyone who tested positive after the previous season ended, not based on the end of the league year. They can't retroactively un-suspend guys and I don't think anyone expected that, but guys who tested positive after the year was over and didn't get suspended until the following season deserve to have their suspensions overturned if they wouldn't have been positive under the new rules.

I get why they're doing it the way that they are. I just think it's stupid and asinine.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The simple answer would be to apply the rule to anyone who tested positive after the previous season ended, not based on the end of the league year.

That would be an arbitrary date that has never been used in their contracts before. The league year ending date was established in 2013 -- it wasn't something they picked out of a hat just in the last couple of weeks.

They can't retroactively un-suspend guys and I don't think anyone expected that, but guys who tested positive after the year was over and didn't get suspended until the following season deserve to have their suspensions overturned if they wouldn't have been positive under the new rules.

No, but they could retroactive move guys backwards down the "stage" ladder, so that a guy who was placed in stage 1 because of a 29 ng/mL result in 2013 would have his record cleared, etc... Guys in stage 2 might be moved back to stage 1, guys in stage 3 would be moved back to stage 2, etc.. That's exactly what other teams were arguing should happen if Gordon's 2013 positive result was overturned. So rather than open up all those prior positive results in past league years that would have been negative under the new agreement, they made the new agreement effective for this league year only. It makes a shit-ton of sense if you're the ones administering the contract, because the last thing you want to do is unwind things that are in the past.

 

[Soda]

It really should be all or nothing. Ten games is just stupid and arbitrary. Either both the test and the punishment should be retroactive or neither should. Giving him the retroactive punishment for a test he would have retroactively passed is about the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

Of course the suspension is arbitrary... The sides each likely approached the negotiation process with positions that aren't arbitrary and they likely came to an agreement in the middle. Negotiations aren't like a fuse box where things are one way or the other, they're fluid and creativity is valued in negotiations with this much complexity.