Gordon and Welker...Whatta Ya Think?

[Chef99]

Vote on the new drug agreement is today. Word is, that if these guys get their suspensions reduced (or revoked), the other owners are gonna be pissed and will want their players suspensions changed as well.

Will this be the stumbling block? And even though the Rice thing is an entirely different matter, will it affect the outcome here?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Vote on the new drug agreement is today. Word is, that if these guys get their suspensions reduced (or revoked), the other owners are gonna be pissed and will want their players suspensions changed as well.

Will this be the stumbling block? And even though the Rice thing is an entirely different matter, will it affect the outcome here?

If they reduce an already given penalty then there is something wrong... All decisions pre-policy should be grandfathered in since they were in regards of the previous policy...

 

[Chef99]

If they reduce an already given penalty then there is something wrong... All decisions pre-policy should be grandfathered in since they were in regards of the previous policy...

I totally agree with this. Seems like the logical conclusion and just plain common sense.

 

[jarntt]

If they reduce an already given penalty then there is something wrong... All decisions pre-policy should be grandfathered in since they were in regards of the previous policy...

Totally agree. What if one part of the agreement makes a suspension for something tougher. Do they go back and retroactively suspend a player that previously wasn't?

Look at Ray Rice. yes, they went back and extended his suspension, but that was based on new evidence, not the new rule. They made the new rule after the outcry of him only getting two games and did not go back and make his suspension 6 games until this new evidence came out.

That being said, my Cowboys could use Orlando Scandrick, so I hope they do overturn all of them even though I'd disagree with it!!!

 

[TK21775]

Totally agree. What if one part of the agreement makes a suspension for something tougher. Do they go back and retroactively suspend a player that previously wasn't?

Look at Ray Rice. yes, they went back and extended his suspension, but that was based on new evidence, not the new rule. They made the new rule after the outcry of him only getting two games and did not go back and make his suspension 6 games until this new evidence came out.

That being said, my Cowboys could use Orlando Scandrick, so I hope they do overturn all of them even though I'd disagree with it!!!

I still don't see how this is new evidence and I am NOT sticking up for the guy but everyone is acting like they were unaware he hit her until the video came out. She was knocked unconscious, did everyone think he simply patted her on the cheek in there? NFL handled this poorly before the video came out, now it's unbelievable how a billion+ dollar business can make decision so poorly.

 

[Chef99]

Games within games...

ESPN Cleveland calls Josh Gordon's reinstatement to the NFL "inevitable."

To be clear, ESPN Cleveland has no sources on this and is merely speculating. But a deal between the NFL and the union on a new drug policy could come as soon as this week. As part of that deal, players recently suspended for violations (that would no longer warrant suspensions) are expected to get their bans retroactively reduced or repealed. Gordon would still be facing a two-game suspension for the DWI he got on July 5, but the union doesn't want punishment until due process as part of the new pact. The Browns have not cleaned out Gordon's locker since his 16-game suspension was announced.

 

[TK21775]

Games within games...

ESPN Cleveland calls Josh Gordon's reinstatement to the NFL "inevitable."

To be clear, ESPN Cleveland has no sources on this and is merely speculating. But a deal between the NFL and the union on a new drug policy could come as soon as this week. As part of that deal, players recently suspended for violations (that would no longer warrant suspensions) are expected to get their bans retroactively reduced or repealed. Gordon would still be facing a two-game suspension for the DWI he got on July 5, but the union doesn't want punishment until due process as part of the new pact. The Browns have not cleaned out Gordon's locker since his 16-game suspension was announced.

That'd be awesome, picked up Gordon in 12th round of a keeper league and also picked up Welker in 11th round with owners laughing about it!

 

[SoShady]

Bring back Gordon FTW!

 

[wilwhite]

Don't know what they'll do this time, but the last drug policy "superseded" previous drug policies and applied to "all players as of May 2002" or something like that. I expect they'll use similar language here, so it's not like they'd be singling out particular players. If Blackmon somehow was below 50ng/ml or 150 or whatever they decide, he'd be eligible, too (but I'm guessing he was like a bazillion ng/ml). If other guys are suspended because of off-season amphetamines, that would switch over to the substance abuse track instead of the PED track. Maybe the new rules would only help Gordon and Welker, but they may also help some second-string linemen or unknown practice squad guys or whatnot.

 

[Pattersonca65]

I still don't see how this is new evidence and I am NOT sticking up for the guy but everyone is acting like they were unaware he hit her until the video came out. She was knocked unconscious, did everyone think he simply patted her on the cheek in there? NFL handled this poorly before the video came out, now it's unbelievable how a billion+ dollar business can make decision so poorly.

I totally agree with this. I don't understand the outcry now. We knew it was real bad even before seeing the video.

 

[Pattersonca65]

Those guys (Gordon and Welker) are already taken in my league. Some people were already playing the longshot

 

[TREFF]

the whole idea of this retro-active undoing of the suspensions just kinda irks me. I dont' really understand what the point of having rules, and drug policies is, if your going to not only change the rules mid season, but also undo any punishment for breaking the rules. Rules are there for a reason, they were broken because certain players didn't give a shit about the rules, changing the rules doesn't change the fact that they broke them to begin with, and therefore shouldn't have any affect whatsoever on the suspensions which resulted from those infractions, end of story. Anything else is nothing more than a message of weakness from the NFL. And their PR is hurting enough recently as it is. This whole Ray Rice, "why haven't you seen the video yet?" stuff, is FAR from over. And if Goodell, who up until this point has obviously gotten his rocks off as playing the gunslinging sheriff who takes no prisoners, wants to maintain this image of "protecting the shield" and all that horsepucky, he can't keep playing follow the leader after the facts on this stuff. Make a decision according to the rules at hand, and friggin stick with it, period.
If they do this, change the rules than alleviate the suspensions after the fact, what basis do they have for any further suspensions? "why should I worry about being suspended? We'll just lawyer up, get 'em to change the rules and I'll be golden again, right?"
And besides that, what about guys like Dewayne Bowe? he served his one game suspension and its now over, does he get his game check after this rule change? Why doesn't he, or anyone else in a similar situation benefit from this?
One more thing I can't at all fathom..why is the union, fighting so hard for this little caveat which will benefit so few of it's members, and in the process holding up a rules change that could potentially keep many many more from seeing a suspension at all? Say they hardline this retro action crap, won't agree to a deal till they get it. NFL does the same, this doesn't get done for a few months..meanwhile ten new guys get popped for PED's that are actually recreational, or a low level of weed or whatever..now instead of just these two boneheads sitting out, you've got a dozen, all because you just had to have those two, now you've lost another ten. I'll never understand, nor agree with whatever it is that makes a labor union function the way it does.

Gotta be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of, yet somehow I just KNOW they're going to do it. Goodell's legacy, in the blink of an eye, is going to go from disciplinarian who cleaned up the game, to schmuck who talked big. but had no backbone when the chips were down.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It's funny, when the players broke policy the team and nfl stated that these players need help and should go to a program. If there penalties are taken away then doesn't the outcry seem hypocritical??

 

[wilwhite]

Settle down, now. It's not like they're saying pot is okay, or amphetamines are okay. They're fixing a bad testing limit on the one hand and classifying off-season amphetamines as substance abuse rather than PEDs on the other. And in return for merely being reasonable on those two, they get HGH testing sooner, which matters a lot more.

And the current drug policy, if you look closely, has no specific rules against taking anything. It only stipulates testing and penalties.

As for Bowe, I really doubt he tested below the new limit, whatever it will be.

 

[TREFF]

Settle down, now. It's not like they're saying pot is okay, or amphetamines are okay. They're fixing a bad testing limit on the one hand and classifying off-season amphetamines as substance abuse rather than PEDs on the other. And in return for merely being reasonable on those two, they get HGH testing sooner, which matters a lot more.

And the current drug policy, if you look closely, has no specific rules against taking anything. It only stipulates testing and penalties.

As for Bowe, I really doubt he tested below the new limit, whatever it will be.

I"m fine with all that..just not the retro crap. Get the limits set reasonable, get the drugs sorted out into rational categories, get the penalties set. But what's done is done, and it was done with rules and penalties already in place..that needs to mean something if these new ones are to mean anything

 

[Barilko]

Im with Treff no long well written analysis

however he was suspended for a year as per NFL rules and he should be out for the year..

and hey he has a nice history doesn't he

 

[wilwhite]

I think this is a special circumstance because 1) the rules look pretty senseless and 2) the league really wants HGH testing right now. I don't think too many players will bank on that perfect storm coming along again to save their butts anytime soon.

I can agree with your irk about Rice, though. The Ravens releasing him is one thing, but the indefinite ban from the league does seem like a knee-jerk reaction to not-new information. Although I guess Milk's "crime is that he was filmed" might actually mean something here, because it's more "conduct detrimental to the league" when you do it in front of a camera.

 

[jarntt]

I still don't see how this is new evidence and I am NOT sticking up for the guy but everyone is acting like they were unaware he hit her until the video came out. She was knocked unconscious, did everyone think he simply patted her on the cheek in there? NFL handled this poorly before the video came out, now it's unbelievable how a billion+ dollar business can make decision so poorly.

Really? Evidence is proof, not speculation. Did you know 100% that he punched her in the face and knocked her out and as she laid there, and for all he knew she was dead or dying, he did nothing at all? I wasn't 100% sure exactly how she got knocked out. They said she was the aggressor, so to me there would have been a difference between him pushing her back after she charged at him and her hitting her head on the elevator door and getting knocked out, or what actually happened. Could just be I didn't listen close enough to the story, but yeah it was new evidence to me.

 

[wilwhite]

They said she was the aggressor

If this was Ray and Janay's story and that's what they based the punishment on, then yes, it's new. Is that the case?

You can see that he pushed her, she slapped his arm away and was just advancing talking when he slugged her. If they somehow said it was somehow a mutual fight that's just garbage.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If this was Ray and Janay's story and that's what they based the punishment on, then yes, it's new. Is that the case?

You can see that he pushed her, she slapped his arm away and was just advancing talking when he slugged her. If they somehow said it was somehow a mutual fight that's just garbage.

Can we stop assuming what happened??

Also, I am tired of this whole domestic abuse bullshit. How is beating a woman any worse than any other assault?? Don't give me that the woman is weak and defenseless, I am sure most of us would be weak and defenseless vs a professional football player!!! Can we call this incident for what it is, it is public violence and assault and battery. We know absolutely nothing about the woman, so why are we assuming her to be 100% innocent. The only thing for sure is that he is guilty. But we have to stop with the political agenda of domestic violence. It is just like a hate crime and how calling it a hate crime over just a crime is BS.