- Thread starter
- #1
wilwhite
Well-Known Member
- 41,417
- 19,210
- 1,033
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
From what I understand, this is pretty interesting (from a tactical perspective, anyway - from a human perspective Josh just needs to get his act together).
It looks like the league is holding off on its ruling in the hopes the two sides will settle (the whole concept of "settle" implies less than 16 games). But there have been no meetings - apparently because Gordon's team (Rosenhaus and crew) refuse to sit down. Obviously this means they think they have leverage - i.e. they think that the original ruling won't be backed up, or that they have other legal avenues, like a lawsuit (under Ohio law presumably), which would probably include an injunction that would allow Gordon to play.
An injunction would almost certainly be granted because Gordon can't get this year back later and this is his livelihood, but if the league gets their suspension later a delay doesn't really cost them anything.
I think it's very likely that there's a late settlement anyway, and Gordon plays at at least half the year, but more likely 10+ games.
In the unlikely chance that there's no settlement, I think the chances are about even that Goodell rules against Gordon - because on the one hand everything is technically correct per the league policy, but on the other this testing procedure could get hammered in court, which legally can supersede the fact that the NFLPA agreed to it, and that's an outcome that would hurt the whole substance abuse program).
If Goodell rules against Gordon, I assume it goes immediately to court, where Gordon has an excellent chance at an injunction, and a reasonable chance at having the ruling thrown out.
So the only way Gordon doesn't play is if:
1) there is no settlement (unlikely - say 30%) AND
2) Goodell rules against Gordon (even - say 50%) AND
3) there isn't a subsequent lawsuit or the court doesn't grant an injunction (unlikely - say 30%) AND
4) without an injunction the trial lasts all season or the court decides against Gordon (about even - say 50%)
So if I'm right, the chances for Gordon not to play this season would be .30 x .50 x .30 x .50 - or about 2%. Meaning I think there's about a 98% chance he plays. How many games, and which part of the season, is kind of up for grabs though.
If we suddenly find out that there was no settlement and the ruling goes against Gordon, my estimate drops to about 85% that he plays - which is still pretty high.
(Whether he keeps his act together enough to not get banned anyway is another analysis entirely.)
It looks like the league is holding off on its ruling in the hopes the two sides will settle (the whole concept of "settle" implies less than 16 games). But there have been no meetings - apparently because Gordon's team (Rosenhaus and crew) refuse to sit down. Obviously this means they think they have leverage - i.e. they think that the original ruling won't be backed up, or that they have other legal avenues, like a lawsuit (under Ohio law presumably), which would probably include an injunction that would allow Gordon to play.
An injunction would almost certainly be granted because Gordon can't get this year back later and this is his livelihood, but if the league gets their suspension later a delay doesn't really cost them anything.
I think it's very likely that there's a late settlement anyway, and Gordon plays at at least half the year, but more likely 10+ games.
In the unlikely chance that there's no settlement, I think the chances are about even that Goodell rules against Gordon - because on the one hand everything is technically correct per the league policy, but on the other this testing procedure could get hammered in court, which legally can supersede the fact that the NFLPA agreed to it, and that's an outcome that would hurt the whole substance abuse program).
If Goodell rules against Gordon, I assume it goes immediately to court, where Gordon has an excellent chance at an injunction, and a reasonable chance at having the ruling thrown out.
So the only way Gordon doesn't play is if:
1) there is no settlement (unlikely - say 30%) AND
2) Goodell rules against Gordon (even - say 50%) AND
3) there isn't a subsequent lawsuit or the court doesn't grant an injunction (unlikely - say 30%) AND
4) without an injunction the trial lasts all season or the court decides against Gordon (about even - say 50%)
So if I'm right, the chances for Gordon not to play this season would be .30 x .50 x .30 x .50 - or about 2%. Meaning I think there's about a 98% chance he plays. How many games, and which part of the season, is kind of up for grabs though.
If we suddenly find out that there was no settlement and the ruling goes against Gordon, my estimate drops to about 85% that he plays - which is still pretty high.
(Whether he keeps his act together enough to not get banned anyway is another analysis entirely.)
