Per League Sources, Josh Gordon Suspension upheld following appeal, suspended one full year

[Mike]

He's been to Court. He got 12 days less 2 for time served. Even though the San Jose Sheriff exedoted him through the process then took him to the shooting range.

The Sheriff took him to the range? Did the Sheriff let him handle a weapon? If he did Smith was in violation of the law and any probation terms he agreed to. The Sheriff would have broken the law as well if he let Smith handle/shoot a weapon. Smith's prohibited from ammunition as well. Josh Gordon...what an idiot

 

[reggae]

The Sheriff took him to the range? Did the Sheriff let him handle a weapon? If he did Smith was in violation of the law and any probation terms he agreed to. The Sheriff would have broken the law as well if he let Smith handle/shoot a weapon. Smith's prohibited from ammunition as well. Josh Gordon...what an idiot

no because he hadn't been convicted yet.

 

[iced]

What's the deal with Josh Brent? I know he retired due to his drunk driving and killing Jerry Brown but wasn't sure if he was suspended. I know he's awaiting reinstatement but wasn't sure if he got the Michael Vick, suspended indefinitely thing or not. On a side note, Jerry Brown's family was incredibly nice and forgiving about the whole incident. I'd probably seek some sort of revenge myself but it's nice to see people show that type of kindness.

not 100% sure on brent... yea the brown's family was nice,they understood it was an accident...

the whole thing is similar to reggie white - except he was a speeder and wasn't drunk

 

[Mike]

no because he hadn't been convicted yet.

"He's been to Court. He got 12 days less 2 for time served. Even though the San Jose Sheriff exedoted him through the process then took him to the shooting range."

no because he hadn't been convicted yet.

I asked my ? based on the red quote above. Even if Smith wasn't convicted that would be highly irregular to take a person with an open firearm case to the range. That would be a major conflict of interest. It would also be considered unethical.

 

[reggae]

"He's been to Court. He got 12 days less 2 for time served. Even though the San Jose Sheriff exedoted him through the process then took him to the shooting range."




I asked my ? based on the red quote above. Even if Smith wasn't convicted that would be highly irregular to take a person with an open firearm case to the range. That would be a major conflict of interest. It would also be considered unethical.

Well, I'll do some research when I get home. But from what I understand he was on and out in less than 2 hours and got 2 days credit for te served. It's pretty common knowledge out here.

 

[jrry32]

Gotta love the message the NFL is sending... Smoke marijuana a few times and you can't play in our league....

but hey feel free to beat your wife, illegally own guns,make bomb threats, get a DUI, and embarass/degrade your teammates - we'll only give you a couple games!

And to think - Smoking weed 2 or 3x gets you the same punishment as killing someone as a DUI (Josh Brent, Donte Stallworth)

NFL isn't sending a message. One is collectively bargained, one isn't. If you think the drug policy is too strict, blame the players for agreeing to it in the CBA. If you think the personal conduct policy is too lenient, I guess you can blame Goodell although the truth is that he suspended Ray Rice for a year, he would have been taken to court over it. There's precedence and he has only so much leeway in handing out punishments. Or do people forget Jonathan Vilma suing Goodell and the league after he was suspended in his role for the bounties?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Amitar]

This is wrong on so many levels. First; your employer should not be able to punish you for something you do on your own time. I don't care if it was in his contract or the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL. It is wrong and should be against the law. If you break the law the legal system will handle it not your employer. Second; pot is legal in some states yet they punish someone for using it. Total double standard. Third; what is wrong with it in relation to football? Does it hamper your play on the field? Obviously No. Does it enhance your play on the field Ie is it a performance enhancing drug? No.

 

[iced]

There's precedence and he has only so much leeway in handing out punishments. Or do people forget Jonathan Vilma suing Goodell and the league after he was suspended in his role for the bounties?
.

which was dismissed....vilma made claims that were unfounded... that's no different than me accusing you of something and taking you to court over it..he couldn't prove it

and yes - i think the stance on marijuana is ridiculous.. it's not like its HGH or giving them an edge on game days

 

[jrry32]

This is wrong on so many levels. First; your employer should not be able to punish you for something you do on your own time. I don't care if it was in his contract or the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL. It is wrong and should be against the law. If you break the law the legal system will handle it not your employer. Second; pot is legal in some states yet they punish someone for using it. Total double standard. Third; what is wrong with it in relation to football? Does it hamper your play on the field? Obviously No. Does it enhance your play on the field Ie is it a performance enhancing drug? No.

Well, they can. And it ain't just the NFL. A lot of businesses drug test. A lot of businesses will fire you if your personal life stands a chance at harming their reputation. It's how it works here in good old America. That's freedom for you...private businesses have freedom just like you and me.

which was dismissed....vilma made claims that were unfounded... that's no different than me accusing you of something and taking you to court over it..he couldn't prove it

and yes - i think the stance on marijuana is ridiculous.. it's not like its HGH or giving them an edge on game days

How many jobs drug test? How many jobs allow you to fail a drug test without you getting fired?

Nothing ridiculous about it. In fact, it's pretty commonplace.

 

[jrry32]

which was dismissed....vilma made claims that were unfounded... that's no different than me accusing you of something and taking you to court over it..he couldn't prove it

The defamation suit...yes. But I'm not talking about that:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/who-dat-in-court-the-jonathan-vilma-case-explained/

The hearing brought good news and bad news for the players. Let’s start with the good news: Judge Berrigan made it fairly clear that she thought the NFL was in the wrong and began the hearing by saying that she’d “like to rule in Vilma’s favor.” Although she issued no formal ruling, Judge Berrigan repeatedly stated that she believed that the commissioner overstepped his bounds in disciplining the Bounty 4, that the league did not give the players a fair process, that Vilma’s punishment was unnecessarily harsh, and that Vilma was suffering irreparable harm because of it. The judge also strongly suggested — but made no formal ruling — that the bounty scheme was a pay-for-performance issue covered by Article 14 of the CBA.

A formal ruling that this was in fact an Article 14 issue would be significant because the system arbitrator, and not the commissioner, has exclusive jurisdiction over issues covered under Article 14 (additionally, suspensions are not permitted for violations of Article 14). In other words, if this is a pay-for-performance/Article 14 issue and not a “conduct detrimental” issue, Goodell would have no authority to punish the players and their suspension would be vacated (perhaps pending another arbitration heard by someone other than Goodell). The system arbitrator, Professor Stephen Burbank, rejected this very argument by the NFLPA on June 4. A three-member arbitration panel will hear an appeal of that ruling on August 30.

Here’s the bad news: Judge Berrigan did not grant an injunction for Vilma, she did not vacate the suspensions, and she expressed some doubt as to whether she had the authority to do either. Instead, she urged the parties to settle the case and suggested that she would not rule (and perhaps could not rule) until the three-member panel heard the appeal of Professor Burbank’s ruling on August 30.

The three-member panel vacated the suspensions so the Judge did not have to make a ruling on this issue.

 

[Amitar]

Well, they can. And it ain't just the NFL. A lot of businesses drug test. A lot of businesses will fire you if your personal life stands a chance at harming their reputation. It's how it works here in good old America. That's freedom for you...private businesses have freedom just like you and me.



How many jobs drug test? How many jobs allow you to fail a drug test without you getting fired?

Nothing ridiculous about it. In fact, it's pretty commonplace.

To everything you said, it still does not make it right, IMHO its just plain wrong.

 

[jrry32]

To everything you said, it still does not make it right, IMHO its just plain wrong.

I don't think it is. Marijuana is still illegal. Whether you agree with it or not(I don't), it's still against the law in the vast majority of states including Ohio. Gordon was well aware of the policy. He was well aware of what failed drug tests mean(he was kicked out of two colleges and suspended in 2013). And yet Gordon still chose to smoke.

A man is responsible for his actions. Gordon knew the consequences and he chose to do it anyways. Why should he have excuses made for him? Because you think Ray Rice wasn't punished harshly enough or because him smoking is a victimless crime? He's a grown man. He was well aware of the risks and he didn't care.

No, Gordon missing the season is not wrong. It was laid out in the contract that the NFLPA agreed to. He was well aware of it. He could have easily refused to smoke weed for the next however many years he's in the NFL, made tons of money, and then smoked to his heart's content after he retired. Instead, he selfishly chose to smoke and screwed his teammates over. That's wrong.

And what remorse did he show? Oh yea, he got popped for a DUI after the suspension was announced.

I feel no pity for the man. Nothing wrong about it. He made choices and now he's suffering the consequences.

 

[iced]

How many jobs drug test? How many jobs allow you to fail a drug test without you getting fired?

Nothing ridiculous about it. In fact, it's pretty commonplace.

Depends on the job.. for example,navy is zero tolerance, air force is once or twice i believe, and the Army as well as Marines allow multiples... have seen as high as 3 offenses in both.

and it is ridiculous.. i've met my fair share of managers (and smoked with, lol) who don't care - all they care about is your work out put and how you do your job..its when you let it affect you at work when people take notice

 

[iced]

The three-member panel vacated the suspensions so the Judge did not have to make a ruling on this issue.

The hearing brought good news and bad news for the players. Let’s start with the good news: Judge Berrigan made it fairly clear that she thought the NFL was in the wrong and began the hearing by saying that she’d “like to rule in Vilma’s favor.” Although she issued no formal ruling, Judge Berrigan repeatedly stated that she believed that the commissioner overstepped his bounds in disciplining the Bounty 4, that the league did not give the players a fair process, that Vilma’s punishment was unnecessarily harsh, and that Vilma was suffering irreparable harm because of it. The judge also strongly suggested — but made no formal ruling — that the bounty scheme was a pay-for-performance issue covered by Article 14 of the CBA.

A formal ruling that this was in fact an Article 14 issue would be significant because the system arbitrator, and not the commissioner, has exclusive jurisdiction over issues covered under Article 14 (additionally, suspensions are not permitted for violations of Article 14). In other words, if this is a pay-for-performance/Article 14 issue and not a “conduct detrimental” issue, Goodell would have no authority to punish the players and their suspension would be vacated (perhaps pending another arbitration heard by someone other than Goodell). The system arbitrator, Professor Stephen Burbank, rejected this very argument by the NFLPA on June 4. A three-member arbitration panel will hear an appeal of that ruling on August 30.

Here’s the bad news: Judge Berrigan did not grant an injunction for Vilma, she did not vacate the suspensions, and she expressed some doubt as to whether she had the authority to do either.Instead, she urged the parties to settle the case and suggested that she would not rule (and perhaps could not rule) until the three-member panel heard the appeal of Professor Burbank’s ruling on August 30.

whether she did it or someone else did is irrelevant - that doesn't change the fact that his claims were still unfounded. It was dismissed,not settled.

 

[jrry32]

Depends on the job.. for example,navy is zero tolerance, air force is once or twice i believe, and the Army as well as Marines allow multiples... have seen as high as 3 offenses in both.

and it is ridiculous.. i've met my fair share of managers (and smoked with, lol) who don't care - all they care about is your work out put and how you do your job..its when you let it affect you at work when people take notice

It's not ridiculous. It's how the world operates. Drug tests are commonplace.

Don't like them? Don't agree with them? Find a job/career with a company that doesn't care or with managers, as you said, who don't care. The NFL does care. And as a NFL player, Gordon subjects himself to those policies. Because the NFL is a business and they have that right.

whether she did it or someone else did is irrelevant - that doesn't change the fact that his claims were still unfounded. It was dismissed,not settled.

You're wrong. That part of the case was never dismissed. The players dropped their suit after their suspensions were overturned by Paul Tagliabue later that season. Which is more akin to the issue being settled. Judgement was never passed on the case.

 

[iced]

It's not ridiculous. It's how the world operates. Drug tests are commonplace.

Don't like them? Don't agree with them? Find a job/career with a company that doesn't care or with managers, as you said, who don't care. The NFL does care. And as a NFL player, Gordon subjects himself to those policies. Because the NFL is a business and they have that right.

You don't have to agree - that's fine. I just disagree with the severity of the penalty for this and then have weak ones for others like Ray Rice beating his wife.... I mean seriously... how do you justify Gordon's suspension and give Aldon Smith only 8 games?

I mean clearly the guy smokin' the blunt is the bigger issue than the gun totin' alchy who gets into knife fights and makes bomb threats... especially since we're all worried about role models and everything

You're wrong. That part of the case was never dismissed. The players dropped their suit after their suspensions were overturned by Paul Tagliabue later that season. Which is more akin to the issue being settled. Judgement was never passed on the case.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ainst-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell/1843089/

A New Orleans federal judge has dismissed Jonathan Vilma's defamation lawsuit against NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, thus bringing a close to nearly all of the legal action in the New Orleans Saints bounty scandal.

Judge Helen Berrigan found Vilma's claims, and the evidence to support them, to be insufficient and upheld Goodell's right to investigate conduct detrimental to the league under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

Q&A: NFLPA head talks about HGH testing

But Berrigan took a swipe at Goodell's initial investigation and the pall the entire situation placed over the Saints' season.

"While the Court is extremely disturbed by the fundamental lack of due process in Goodell's denying the players the identities of and the right to confront their accusers, that was substantially rectified later in the process," Berrigan wrote. "So while the process was initially procedurally flawed, the statements were ultimately found to have enough support to defeat the defamation claims."

Vilma was initially suspended for the entire season. Former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who heard the players' appeals after Goodell upheld his own decision, vacated all of the suspensions of the players involved. But Tagliabue confirmed Goodell's factual findings a bounty program had been in place.

"We are obviously disappointed, strongly believe that the CBA does not give anyone -- including a commissioner -- a license to misrepresent and to manufacture facts, especially at the expense of another person's reputation, and are considering our options," said Peter Ginsberg, Vilma's attorney.

The Saints, without head coach Asshole Face for the entire season as well as interim coach Joe Vitt for the first six games, went 7-9. It was their first losing season since 2007.

"Even though this matter has been pending only since May of this year, it feels as protracted and painful as the Saints season itself, and calls for closure," Berrigan wrote. "The Court nonetheless believes that had this matter been handled in a less heavy handed way, with greater fairness toward the players and the pressures they face, this litigation and the related cases would not have been necessary."

The only pending legal action left pertaining to the bounty case is a class-action suit filed by a Saints season-ticket holder, who is claiming the value of his tickets was affected by the bounty case. The league has filed a motion to dismiss that suit as well.

 

[jrry32]

You don't have to agree - that's fine. I just disagree with the severity of the penalty for this and then have weak ones for others like Ray Rice beating his wife.... I mean seriously... how do you justify Gordon's suspension and give Aldon Smith only 8 games?

Different policy. One is the personal conduct policy which does not have an established system of punishment. The other is the substances of abuse policy which does.

The NFL is obligated to follow policy in Gordon's suspension. It's objective.

Punishments doled out with the personal conduct policy are subjective and arbitrary.

I'm not arguing that it's fair when compared to the Rice situation. I'm arguing that you're comparing apples to oranges and that the argument should go the opposite direction if anything. That Rice should have been punished more severely...not Gordon less severely.

Even if I disagree with pot being illegal. Still think it's crazy that marijuana is illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both legal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ainst-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell/1843089/

You're misinterpreting the ruling. She dismissed the DEFAMATION lawsuit. In fact, here's some of her reasoning:

"While the Court is extremely disturbed by the fundamental lack of due process in Goodell's denying the players the identities of and the right to confront their accusers, that was substantially rectified later in the process," Berrigan wrote. "So while the process was initially procedurally flawed, the statements were ultimately found to have enough support to defeat the defamation claims."

Meaning that Goodell can investigate in his role as Commissioner which is a right of his under the CBA and the claims that he made that Vilma sued for ended up being true or, at minimum, had enough support that they did not meet the standard necessary for defamation.

She did not rule on the issue of the suspensions themselves because that issue was settled out of court. Here's the evidence:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2012/12/12/jonathan-vilma-defamation-roger-goodell

In motions filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court, Vilma and the NFL Players Association filed motions dropping their claims against the league over the player-discipline phase of the bounty probe.

However, Vilma notified U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan he would continue to pursue defamation claims he filed against the commissioner back in May, and asked the judge to open the discovery process which includes the collection of evidence and deposing of witnesses.

It wasn't dismissed, it was dropped because the NFL vacated the suspensions. Which means that there was no ruling on the case which created no precedence. Had a judgement been rendered and it had been dismissed, it would set precedence.

 

[iced]

I'm not arguing that it's fair when compared to the Rice situation. I'm arguing that you're comparing apples to oranges and that the argument should go the opposite direction if anything. That Rice should have been punished more severely...not Gordon less severely.

And I personally think Pot shouldn't even be tested for. My biggest issue is with their policy, which has been pointed out several times, is the amount of THC that is required to pop positive. the NFL Drug testing uses a very, very low scale compared to other sports which are higher.

on the nanogram levels - http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...es-on-disparity-between-a-and-b-bottle-tests/

Although apparently the NFL see's this issue with the testing and even agreed to raise the test levels of NG to 100 from 15 for the new CBA (read somewhere if players agreed to HGH testing they'd raise the minimum Ng Levels). Believe it or not, you can test positive for second hand smoke at that low of ng levels. Which is why gordon's defense is actually reasonable.

You're misinterpreting the ruling. She dismissed the DEFAMATION lawsuit. In fact, here's some of her reasoning:


Meaning that Goodell can investigate in his role as Commissioner which is a right of his under the CBA and the claims that he made that Vilma sued for ended up being true or, at minimum, had enough support that they did not meet the standard necessary for defamation.

She did not rule on the issue of the suspensions themselves because that issue was settled out of court. Here's the evidence:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2012/12/12/jonathan-vilma-defamation-roger-goodell


It wasn't dismissed, it was dropped because the NFL vacated the suspensions. Which means that there was no ruling on the case which created no precedence. Had a judgement been rendered and it had been dismissed, it would set precedence.

Lol no I think the issue is that you think I'm talking about suing for suspensions, when I'm talking about suing for damages like lost wages, defamation of character, etc.

-sigh- the curse of lawyer blood

 

[jrry32]

Lol no I think the issue is that you think I'm talking about suing for suspensions, when I'm talking about suing for damages like lost wages, defamation of character, etc.

-sigh- the curse of lawyer blood

Must have been a misunderstanding then. I broached the point in relation to Goodell only having so much leeway when it came to punishments relating to the personal conduct policy. Wasn't intending to discuss lost wages, defamation, etc. The Vilma suit over his suspension was brought up to show that Goodell's power in suspending has its limits...which is why a guy like Ray Rice couldn't be suspended for a full season for his actions.

Not just blood anymore...I started law school last week at UF.

 

[iced]

Must have been a misunderstanding then. I broached the point in relation to Goodell only having so much leeway when it came to punishments relating to the personal conduct policy. Wasn't intending to discuss lost wages, defamation, etc. The Vilma suit over his suspension was brought up to show that Goodell's power in suspending has its limits...which is why a guy like Ray Rice couldn't be suspended for a full season for his actions.

It was kind of brought up earlier today in class - fresh on the memory... but what got me thinking was the quote "they still got sued" - and i remembered the defamation lawsuit

And I think a full season is excessive for Ray Rice - I would expect more than 2 games though.

Not just blood anymore...I started law school last week at UF.

Lol nice. Bout to finish up at USF