Josh Gordon suspended one year

[kearly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_players_and_coaches_suspended_by_the_NFL

The most amazing thing about that list is how many suspensions the NFL has had since 2006. Roger Goodell became NFL commissioner on September 1st, 2006. Roughly 3/4 of all non-substance abuse suspensions in NFL history have been handed out in the Goodell era.

 

[IndyHawk]

Gordon deserves a lot of time off..The NFL however has to set the terms straight for punishment..Can't be 2 games for 1 guy ,8 for another and 5 for another....For the same offense ,regardless for a prior different offense...I also don't get smoking weed is worse than clocking your gf and knocking her out...Roger must have woman issues but wants the LAW on weed...Might as well let the fans vote on the punishment...

 

[Sports Hernia]

Correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong. Well, we don't know for sure, but you likely are. The CBA says that any player suspensions, period, must involve consultation with the head of the NFL Players Association. Doesn't mean the NFL has to let them dictate punishment or changes to what the NFL wants to do, but there's obviously discussion. First-time offenders are limited to a maximum suspension of four games for "discipline related to violation of the law", so we already know that Ray Rice's MAXIMUM under the CBA and substance abuse policy would be a suspension of four games. Now, is it safe to assume that in general terms, the NFLPA and NFL try to get along where possible, that they don't just try to butt heads behind closed doors for the sake of it over everything?

Assuming you agree with that, if a player who has been in the league for a while like Ray Rice has gets in trouble for the first time, can we agree with the idea that the NFLPA will point out that he has been a model player for years and that he should not be handed down the maximum punishment allowed?

Now, assuming you agree in general terms with both of those things...What is left? A compromise of two games, the way I see it. The NFL doesn't want to piss its players off unnecessarily, so for a player who has never been in trouble through six NFL seasons, the NFL still needs to punish him but needs to acknowledge that he has not been a problem child. A compromise of two games, even though the NFL by default likely just wants to hand out harsh penalties for everything, seems like the logical outcome.

If you disagree with this line of reasoning, logically and without hatred toward any one person or entity lay out your differing case, please.

Dom, explain Aldon Smith. DUI AND illegal weapons....6 games? Really, that is less than smoking weed?

Beating the shit out of a woman = 2 games. Whatever.

Read the documents I linked in this reply.

Well wouldn't you think it would have been safe for the league to go for the maximum punishment for Rice in this situation? He was beating on a woman, the league was in the "position of strength" supensionwise as 99.9% of the people that saw the tape thought it was a deplorable event.

If the union grieves any punishment the league would have handed out in this case they would have been in the ugly position of having to defend a guy that beats a woman which would put them in a horrible light. IMHO they could have given Rice a year suspension in this particular case and it would have stood, as for Rog, even his detractors <raising my hand> would have aplauded his ruling if he had gone that far or even half that far.

 

[RolandDeschain]

If the union grieves any punishment the league would have handed out in this case they would have been in the ugly position of having to defend a guy that beats a woman which would put them in a horrible light. IMHO they could have given Rice a year suspension in this particular case and it would have stood, as for Rog, even his detractors <raising my hand> would have aplauded his ruling if he had gone that far or even half that far.

It is literally impossible for the commish/NFL to have given Rice a year-long suspension for this. The absolute maximum allowed by the CBA and its rules for what Rice did is four games, and there isn't even a requirement that he be suspended in the first place. Again, I don't think the NFL minds going a little lighter on a first-time offender that has been an angel for six seasons already. I'd imagine they want to stomp on guys that start screwing up right out of the gate more to try and curb that behavior later on in their careers, but that's just a guess.

I'm not defending Rice only getting two games. I've already said I think about eight would have been appropriate. I am just saying I understand the two under the rules and overall situation with the current CBA.

 

[Kixkahn]

The bigger suspension for drugs of any nature over any kind of violent crimes looks bad. It really makes the NFL look like they don't care if it affects other people just not the players ability to play. So what is more important? Other people or if their ability to play is effected? :hmmmm: