CBSSports reporting Gordon most likely gets 8 games
-
roger the anarchist
-
tell me if i'm wrong but the league can't address the alleged ovi until he is proven guilty in a carolina court?
What Roger is saying is that when there is:
- a pattern of behavior, e.g., Blackmon, he does not wait for the court decision.
- not a pattern of behavior, e.g., Irsay, Rice, he waits.
That's his story... and he's sticking with it.
So the question is, does he consider - weed, weed, cough syrup, 2nd hand weed, speeding (not my weed) DUI - a pattern???
What Roger is saying is that when there is:
- a pattern of behavior, e.g., Blackmon, he does not wait for the court decision.
- not a pattern of behavior, e.g., Irsay, Rice, he waits.
That's his story... and he's sticking with it.
So the question is, does he consider - weed, weed, cough syrup, 2nd hand weed, speeding (not my weed) DUI - a pattern???
the problem with Irsay is it's certainly not the first time he was doing it, just the first time he got caught.The smart thing for Goodell to do IMHO would be to just drop the iffy drug charge (which could be challenged in court)- and suspend Gordon for two games under the personal conduct policy- which can't be.
-
-
tell me if i'm wrong but the league can't address the alleged ovi until he is proven guilty in a carolina court?
What Roger is saying is that when there is:
- a pattern of behavior, e.g., Blackmon, he does not wait for the court decision.
- not a pattern of behavior, e.g., Irsay, Rice, he waits.
That's his story... and he's sticking with it.
So the question is, does he consider - weed, weed, cough syrup, 2nd hand weed, speeding (not my weed) DUI - a pattern???
What Roger is saying is that when there is:
- a pattern of behavior, e.g., Blackmon, he does not wait for the court decision.
- not a pattern of behavior, e.g., Irsay, Rice, he waits.
That's his story... and he's sticking with it.
So the question is, does he consider - weed, weed, cough syrup, 2nd hand weed, speeding (not my weed) DUI - a pattern???
Since this isn't a court of law, but an administrative penalty governed by contract with the players union, do they have to follow the law of a state to give an admin punishment? I wouldn't think so.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
What Roger is saying is that when there is:
- a pattern of behavior, e.g., Blackmon, he does not wait for the court decision.
- not a pattern of behavior, e.g., Irsay, Rice, he waits.
That's his story... and he's sticking with it.
So the question is, does he consider - weed, weed, cough syrup, 2nd hand weed, speeding (not my weed) DUI - a pattern???
Since this isn't a court of law, but an administrative penalty governed by contract with the players union, do they have to follow the law of a state to give an admin punishment? I wouldn't think so.
Since this isn't a court of law, but an administrative penalty governed by contract with the players union, do they have to follow the law of a state to give an admin punishment? I wouldn't think so.
I suspect not, because then you'd have different rules for different players in the league (ie, all the smokey joe's would go to Denver)
-
-
The precedent has already been set that NFL teams are employers of the players who are employees. Employers must follow state employment guidelines.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
The precedent has already been set that NFL teams are employers of the players who are employees. Employers must follow state employment guidelines.
That would seem unfair to a player who played in a state with liberal laws, vs one with strict laws.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
The precedent has already been set that NFL teams are employers of the players who are employees. Employers must follow state employment guidelines.
That would seem unfair to a player who played in a state with liberal laws, vs one with strict laws.
That would seem unfair to a player who played in a state with liberal laws, vs one with strict laws.
My point exactly. Also, I'm not sure if the state/federal thing applies here to league rules, where a positive drug test is grounds for suspension - I'm not sure if there's such a stipulation in state law?
-
What Roger is saying is that when there is:
- a pattern of behavior, e.g., Blackmon, he does not wait for the court decision.
- not a pattern of behavior, e.g., Irsay, Rice, he waits.
That's his story... and he's sticking with it.
So the question is, does he consider - weed, weed, cough syrup, 2nd hand weed, speeding (not my weed) DUI - a pattern???
Since this isn't a court of law, but an administrative penalty governed by contract with the players union, do they have to follow the law of a state to give an admin punishment? I wouldn't think so.
Since this isn't a court of law, but an administrative penalty governed by contract with the players union, do they have to follow the law of a state to give an admin punishment? I wouldn't think so.
That was the entire crux of the Star Caps litigation with the one Saint and the 2 Vikings. They were in court for 2 seasons before things were resolved. It all hinged on Minnesota state law in regards to how drug tests are administered. The players essentially won that lawsuit.
-
Since this isn't a court of law, but an administrative penalty governed by contract with the players union, do they have to follow the law of a state to give an admin punishment? I wouldn't think so.
That was the entire crux of the Star Caps litigation with the one Saint and the 2 Vikings. They were in court for 2 seasons before things were resolved. It all hinged on Minnesota state law in regards to how drug tests are administered. The players essentially won that lawsuit.
That was the entire crux of the Star Caps litigation with the one Saint and the 2 Vikings. They were in court for 2 seasons before things were resolved. It all hinged on Minnesota state law in regards to how drug tests are administered. The players essentially won that lawsuit.
Can that happen in Josh's case?
-
Theyre just reporting what the Browns said they think he gets. I still think its thrown out and he gets 2-4 for the dui.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
Theyre just reporting what the Browns said they think he gets. I still think its thrown out and he gets 2-4 for the dui.
But players don't recieve suspensions for first offense DUI's. That why I am thinking one of two things happen. They follow the letter of their rules and he is out for a season and then gets loses some game checks when he comes back, or they interpret it as they would under how the drug policy is going to look after HGH takes affect and he won't miss any games for the "failed" drug test, but will be suspended 1-2 games for his DUI as a first time offender.
-
It seems to me as each day goes by the NFL is just trying to figure out how to suspend him to save face about all this mess. Between the "truth" the media is reporting and what's behind closed doors is this: it's obvious Gordon and his legal team made a strong case. My guess is 4 games at this point. It's an escalation from the two from last year and they can cite the DUI and previous records to justify it.
All I know is as we much as we hate the Ravens, Ray Rice pretty much became our best friend in all this.
-
That was the entire crux of the Star Caps litigation with the one Saint and the 2 Vikings. They were in court for 2 seasons before things were resolved. It all hinged on Minnesota state law in regards to how drug tests are administered. The players essentially won that lawsuit.
Can that happen in Josh's case?
Can that happen in Josh's case?
In another thread there's a linked article that's really fantastic at explaining the legal issues. But the Ohio law stems not around when or how to test, but rather that if one of the two (a or
samples is negative, then you cannot report the player as failing the test.Because of the Star Caps win, he has a ton of weight behind his case. I expect that if he's suspended even 1 game, that he will take the NFL to court (like the Star Caps guys did), and get a TRO (temporary restraining order) on the suspension, and play in 2014.
-
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
The precedent has already been set that NFL teams are employers of the players who are employees. Employers must follow state employment guidelines.
That would seem unfair to a player who played in a state with liberal laws, vs one with strict laws.
That would seem unfair to a player who played in a state with liberal laws, vs one with strict laws.
Is it fair that one player would pay more in taxes than another? Even if they made the same annual salary and spent that money the same way?
-
That depends on where you chose to live. It would seem that punishment should be equal in all the teams for the same infraction.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
i's live in ports-a-clinton. what's you mean about some taxes?
-
That depends on where you chose to live. It would seem that punishment should be equal in all the teams for the same infraction.
That depends on where you chose to live. It would seem that punishment should be equal in all the teams for the same infraction.
In this particular instance, I happen to believe in the right of the corporation to discipline to the letter of the agreement between union and business. That doesn't mean however, that it's the way it always works... And it doesn't mean that it's always (as you said) fair.
-
boo.
-
The problem is, the NFL doesn't care if they take a beating in the media. It will all be forgotten once the season starts.
not really. i think you'll see womens groups doing some type of on camera protests. wearing pink shirts with some anti-NFL saying on them. i'll guarantee it.
don't fuck with a pissed off lady. you should know that by now.
not really. i think you'll see womens groups doing some type of on camera protests. wearing pink shirts with some anti-NFL saying on them. i'll guarantee it.
don't fuck with a pissed off lady. you should know that by now.
How well do you think it will go over when rice comes out in pink in October?
-
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
The precedent has already been set that NFL teams are employers of the players who are employees. Employers must follow state employment guidelines.
That would seem unfair to a player who played in a state with liberal laws, vs one with strict laws.
That would seem unfair to a player who played in a state with liberal laws, vs one with strict laws.
Not trying to be rude but that seems like a childish argument.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login