[Updated] Josh Gordon possibly suspended for all of 2015

[Gregg]

Why do you keep trying to interject the total speculation that he might have gotten another DUI? As far as we know, as far as any information that's leaked out so far, he simply failed an alcohol test. Nothing more, nothing less.

And no employer should have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do, on your own time. As long as you abide by their rules during the season (same as your hours at work), that should be more than good enough when it comes to legal substances.

I am not speculating that he might get another DUI at all. I am stating that getting the last DUI is the reason that he cannot drink now. It is part of the penalty for crossing the line in the first place.

This from NJ.com:

The "substances of abuse" testing should not be confused with the testing for performance-enhancing drugs. As NFL spokesman Greg Aiello explained to MLive.com in 2012:

"Year-round random testing takes place in the steroids program, not the substance abuse program. If a player is in the substance abuse program, he is subject to frequent testing as determined by the medical professionals of the program. If he's not in the program, he takes an annual drug screen prior to the season."
The reason for this? Aiello again, also via MLive.com:

"Substance abuse is treated as a medical matter. Performance enhancing drugs are a competitive matter."
A failed test or a "behavior" issue such as a drug-related arrest will put a player into Stage One of the league's intervention program. There is no discipline such as a suspension in Stage One; a player is instead subject to additional testing and a treatment program at the discretion of the league's medical director.

It is then up to the medical director to determine whether a player advances to Stage Two of the program, even if the player has not successfully completed Stage One. Discipline can be meted out in Stage Two—a violation for a player in Stage Two who has completed Stage One is a fine of up to four games' pay; a violation for a player in Stage two who has not completed Stage One is a four-game suspension.

A second positive test in Stage Two or two instances of failure to cooperate with the program, or one positive test plus one instance of failure to cooperate will put a player in Stage Three, where he must remain for the rest of his career and be subject to random, unannounced testing. Failure to cooperate or a positive test in Stage Three will result in a one-year banishment.

[Hornsby]

I am not speculating that he might get another DUI at all. I am stating that getting the last DUI is the reason that he cannot drink now. It is part of the penalty for crossing the line in the first place.

This from NJ.com:

The "substances of abuse" testing should not be confused with the testing for performance-enhancing drugs. As NFL spokesman Greg Aiello explained to MLive.com in 2012:

"Year-round random testing takes place in the steroids program, not the substance abuse program. If a player is in the substance abuse program, he is subject to frequent testing as determined by the medical professionals of the program. If he's not in the program, he takes an annual drug screen prior to the season."
The reason for this? Aiello again, also via MLive.com:

"Substance abuse is treated as a medical matter. Performance enhancing drugs are a competitive matter."
A failed test or a "behavior" issue such as a drug-related arrest will put a player into Stage One of the league's intervention program. There is no discipline such as a suspension in Stage One; a player is instead subject to additional testing and a treatment program at the discretion of the league's medical director.

It is then up to the medical director to determine whether a player advances to Stage Two of the program, even if the player has not successfully completed Stage One. Discipline can be meted out in Stage Two—a violation for a player in Stage Two who has completed Stage One is a fine of up to four games' pay; a violation for a player in Stage two who has not completed Stage One is a four-game suspension.

A second positive test in Stage Two or two instances of failure to cooperate with the program, or one positive test plus one instance of failure to cooperate will put a player in Stage Three, where he must remain for the rest of his career and be subject to random, unannounced testing. Failure to cooperate or a positive test in Stage Three will result in a one-year banishment.

I understand all too well how the process works, it's a flawed process at best. And while neither you nor Erik said overtly that Gordon had another DUI, neither of you sufficiently differentiated from one instance to the next, IMO. It lacked sufficient clarity...

[Gregg]

I understand all too well how the process works, it's a flawed process at best. And while neither you nor Erik said overtly that Gordon had another DUI, neither of you sufficiently differentiated from one instance to the next, IMO. It lacked sufficient clarity...

Yeah that can happen on line. Sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees. That said post #5 I think I was pretty clear about this being about his last one. Here is my post:

It was part of his punishment from getting a DUI that he has to be alcohol free. He is not getting arrested he is getting suspended. He doesn't have to like it he has to obey it.

Many companies have a zero tolerance for alcohol. That means if you have even one beer at lunch and come back to work you can be fired. Don't have to like it have to obey it.

[Gregg]

This thread has prompted me to read some things further about the NFL and their seemingly unfair and maybe a bit bizarre substance abuse policy. I came away a bit impressed.

I found out there is no random drug testing during the season for recreational drugs. So the player has to test clean the first day of the season and can pretty much have the freedom to make his own choices in that regard. This seems to be pretty progressive. The line is drawn if a player gets into trouble. That opens the door to random testing. This seems to be done or at least worded to be in the best interests of the player. If a player has a problem the first line of defense is to get that player some help. It is only after multiple failures that true punitive measures are taken.

There is random testing for performance enhancing drugs. This is not connected to the recreational side of things.

Josh Gordon has a decision to make. Get help or go your own way without the NFL. Someone without a problem would not have trouble learning from the first experience. The fact that this is his fourth time is much more than a red flag. It is a true indication of Josh heading down a very dangerous path. No one ever starts off thinking they are going to become an alcoholic or drug addict. And normally they are also the last to know.

[Papa Deuce]

.......

Many companies have a zero tolerance for alcohol. That means if you have even one beer at lunch and come back to work you can be fired. Don't have to like it have to obey it.

Just as an aside, you guys probably know I worked for FOX TV for 19 years... There was alcohol visible all over the place. And when Paramount owned us - even though we were called FOX - Paramount used to buy us 2 kegs of beer every Friday night, as we had a party in the FOX courtyard, every Friday in the summer. Hell, sometimes managers had to go across the street to pull workers out of a strip club / bar. And they let one guy work drunk because he was a far better worker when drunk than sober ( when sober he was nervous and irritable all the time ).

[nullnor]

I love posts like this ^

also irritable is the best word to describe co-workers.

[Midnight Otter]

Best part of my decision to not play in the NFL.

Rats! I was planning on drafting you next year.

[Hornsby]

This thread has prompted me to read some things further about the NFL and their seemingly unfair and maybe a bit bizarre substance abuse policy. I came away a bit impressed.

I found out there is no random drug testing during the season for recreational drugs. So the player has to test clean the first day of the season and can pretty much have the freedom to make his own choices in that regard. This seems to be pretty progressive. The line is drawn if a player gets into trouble. That opens the door to random testing. This seems to be done or at least worded to be in the best interests of the player. If a player has a problem the first line of defense is to get that player some help. It is only after multiple failures that true punitive measures are taken.

There is random testing for performance enhancing drugs. This is not connected to the recreational side of things.

Josh Gordon has a decision to make. Get help or go your own way without the NFL. Someone without a problem would not have trouble learning from the first experience. The fact that this is his fourth time is much more than a red flag. It is a true indication of Josh heading down a very dangerous path. No one ever starts off thinking they are going to become an alcoholic or drug addict. And normally they are also the last to know.

Or he can just be a fairly normal college age kid who likes to smoke weed and drink...nothing says that he's an irredeemable addict in my book. If you don't know the statistics on such behavior, I think that you'll be surprised...

[Pogues]

Best part of my decision to not play in the NFL.

Oh, that's what stopped you from playing in the NFL....

[GwynnInTheHall]

Horns, I don't think that is the issue.

From Yahoo Sports:

It's almost inconceivable that Gordon would put himself in this position, after having a season-long suspension for a drug test lessened to 10 games last season. After Gordon came back, he was suspended for the season finale for skipping a walk-through practice. That 10-game suspension last year was the result of Gordon's fourth violation of the league's drug policy, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported at the time.

Like it or not he needs to follow the rules.

If the rules are for shit, they should change them and IMO, there is an exception to every rule.

[DMT]

If the rules are for shit, they should change them and IMO, there is an exception to every rule.

Exactly...this blind adherence to rules argument is intellectually lazy IMO. Has anyone read that book Three Felonies a Day about how it's basically impossible to live a crime-free existence in our country.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229#

[Hornsby]

Pretty emotional response to his critics by Josh Gordon...

https://medium.com/the-cauldron/an-open-letter-to-charles-barkley-co-cb5c4e64cf3

[chancellor]

Pretty emotional response to his critics by Josh Gordon...

https://medium.com/the-cauldron/an-o...co-cb5c4e64cf3

Sure, it's possible it's true. It's also highly possible he's lying, like Carter did about his cocaine problem, or Armstrong did about doping, or any other near-endless list of athletes who didn't have any "problems".

OTOH, I do always love it when Stephen Smith gets called out for his phoniness.

[Papa Deuce]

Pretty emotional response to his critics by Josh Gordon...

https://medium.com/the-cauldron/an-o...co-cb5c4e64cf3

OK, I have seen Gordon talk before.... and it wasn't anything like that post.... so who actually wrote that?

[Hornsby]

Sure, it's possible it's true. It's also highly possible he's lying, like Carter did about his cocaine problem, or Armstrong did about doping, or any other near-endless list of athletes who didn't have any "problems".

OTOH, I do always love it when Stephen Smith gets called out for his phoniness.

Oh, and trust me, there's probably no bigger hypocrite than Cris Carter...Barkley I like, but he just shoots from the hip without considering the consequences.

And yeah, PD, he may not have written it like that, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't his emotions being expressed, or that the facts as he presents them are wrong...