Josh Gordon Facing Another Indefinite Supspension.. "Steps Away" from Pats

[Harbingers]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I worked under a union, but also worked in management where we had a full seminar with company lawyers that went over everything a union could, and couldn't, do.

Bottom Line: The NFL's CBA bans marijuana use and allows for suspensions when someone fails a test. The players and the players association agreed to this.

That's not changing just for Josh Gordon, no matter how much you want it to.

So you haven’t been involved in an arbitration. This is a very specific point. 

[Harbingers]

1 minute ago, Lumps said:

It's the reason contract type employees like waiters for instance, aren't tested, because they're not really 'employees' and never have benefits etc.

Outside of RTW states this is a blatantly untrue statement. 

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

So you haven’t been involved in an arbitration. This is a very specific point. 

It's a worthless point.

You're basically trying to come up with fantasy situations that would allow for Gordon to keep playing despite his violating an established rule. It's not going to happen.

[Harbingers]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's a worthless point.

You're basically trying to come up with fantasy situations that would allow for Gordon to keep playing despite his violating an established rule. It's not going to happen.

Not at all. All you have said this entire time is the point isn’t valid. It’s worthless. 

My point is arbitrators don’t think like that or you. Because this is going to arbitration under the CBA if he is right or wrong. It’s called appeal. It happens. You are avoiding it. Proving yourself in doing so.  

NFLPA is a union in a union state governed by their laws. As is the NFL. I’m really surprised you don’t understand that.

[luke nukem]

really hope the players take a hard-line stance on marijuana during the next CBA negotations. sad to see a guys career end because of a plant. but DA RULES ARE DA RULES.

[Harbingers]

8 minutes ago, luke nukem said:

really hope the players take a hard-line stance on marijuana during the next CBA negotations. sad to see a guys career end because of a plant. but DA RULES ARE DA RULES.

They should, on that but it’s not a big issue this time around. 

The priority for them this time is to clamp down on the commissioners powers. Can’t let the nfl turn even more into a dictatorship. 

[thefuzz]

9 minutes ago, luke nukem said:

really hope the players take a hard-line stance on marijuana during the next CBA negotations. sad to see a guys career end because of a plant. but DA RULES ARE DA RULES.

They could have done it on the last one, or the one before that...however, it's not as big of an issue for most of the players...especially compared to less practice time and what not.

[Mr. Scot]

8 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Not at all. All you have said this entire time is the point isn’t valid. It’s worthless. 

My point is arbitrators don’t think like that or you. Because this is going to arbitration under the CBA if he is right or wrong. It’s called appeal. It happens. You are avoiding it. Proving yourself in doing so.  

NFLPA is a union in a union state governed by their laws. As is the NFL. I’m really surprised you don’t understand that.

I understand that perfectly. Here's what you don't.

Over the course of the years the policy has been in place, the NFL has suspended loads of players for marijuana use. They do have the ability to appeal their suspensions. A few have been reduced, but most stand as handed down. And many of those suspensions have involved players who were in much better standing with the league than Josh Gordon.

If there were a real possibility of the kind of arbitration to change the policy that you're talking about, I'm pretty sure somebody would have tried it already.

But now you think some guy who's been a continual screw up is going to managed to do what nobody else before him has done.

Yeah...

Good luck with that.

[Harbingers]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I understand that perfectly. Here's what you don't.

Over the course of the years the policy has been in place, the NFL has suspended loads of players for marijuana use. They do have the ability to appeal their suspensions. A few have been reduced, but most stand as handed down. And many of those suspensions have involved players who were in much better standing with the league than Josh Gordon.

If there were a real possibility of the kind of arbitration to change the policy that you're talking about, I'm pretty sure somebody would have tried it already.

But now you think some guy who's been a continual screw up is going to managed to do what nobody else before him has done.

Yeah...

Good luck with that.

And as gods wrath speaks down from the heavens. As he so had chosen a fated few.

Remind me, what was that Half back/fullbacks name who played for Pittsburg and New England again?

[t96]

58 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

That’s not necessarily true, at that point it’s really up to the arbitrator. 

No it’s 100% true. The league has rules against tons of completely legal substances. No arbitration or discussion.

[Harbingers]

1 minute ago, t96 said:

No it’s 100% true. The league has rules against tons of completely legal substances. No arbitration or discussion.

Than you don’t know how arbitration works. 

[Lumps]

34 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Outside of RTW states this is a blatantly untrue statement. 

While it depends on a lot of factors, taxes and the company; when it comes to a court of law and liability, I can assure you from my 6 years experience in the field it is most certainly true.

They don't test because their employee field is basically impossible to find a clean employee but I have seen the most liberal restaurants be forced to random test (possibly for insurance, idk) and fire everyone who tested for anything.

Which brings me back to the point of my statement, if a company hired a person, even a food place, despite documentation proving that said hired person is using substances...either something shady is going on, they're desperate, or the company is willing to look past the liability (have seen and confirmed this ONE time in six years). Restaurants don't test because they can claim they didn't know, that's the point. The taxes filed by a waiter just makes it that much easier.

And I am using waiter as a blanket term. I am not talking about waiters per se. I see more bartenders with taxing conditions I am referring to.

 

[WarHeel]

33 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Perfect. That’s exactly what I was expecting. What was that running backs name? The one who played for Pittsburg and NE?

Who’s that?

[Harbingers]

Just now, WarHeel said:

Who’s that?

That one that got pulled over with weed going to practice?