OT-Browns Josh Gordon "Second Hand Smoke" Defense

Submitted by clarkiefromcanada on

Per the World Wide Leader it seems that the Browns' Josh Gordon's lawyers are planning to argue that he was exposed to marijuana via "second hand smoke" and that this caused for his positive drug test this spring and potential year long suspension.

Also, interestingly:

Gordon's "A" sample tested at 16 nanograms per milliliter, a bare one nanogram per milliliter above the 15-nanogram-per-milliliter threshold, while Gordon's "B" sample -- which should theoretically be consistent with the "A" sample, as it comes from the exact same specimen -- tested at 13.63 ng/ml, lower than the threshold.

Here in Canada, Gordon's strategy reminds us of one Ross Rebagliati, 1998 Olympic Snowboarding Gold Medalist who was apparently, similarly, exposed to the marijuana in pre-Olympics Whistler, BC. Rebagliati is now a marijuana entrepreneur.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in light of the NFL's two game suspension for spouse abuser Ray Rice.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11281430/josh-gordon-legal-team-say-s…

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/07/josh_gordon.html#inca…

Needs

July 29th, 2014 at 6:38 PM ^

For what it's worth, the World Anti-Doping Agency's standard for failing a marijuana test is ten times that of the NFL. Given that everything that Roger Goddell does is wrong, I'm just going to assume this continues the trend.

jaggs

July 29th, 2014 at 9:28 PM ^

but depending on your definition of 'legalize' it, yes employers would have to make concessions for marijuana users. In Canada, it is now legal for medical use, and employers are required to accomodate an employees need to use the drug at work.

If when you say legalize, you mean controlled and sold in a way similar to alcohol or tobacco, then no, employers would not have to accomodate users.

Voltron is Handsome

July 29th, 2014 at 10:30 PM ^

No. Certain company policies don't have to change just because the law says something is illegal. If weed becomes legalized in a certain state, companies can still say their employees cannot smoke it and ask them to submit to random drug tests. It is kind of like guns. Sure, you can carry a gun with a permit, but certain places say you cannot bring it into their establishment, regardless of what the law says. It is just like federal, state, and local laws. Everyone is asked to follow all federal laws, but each state and municipality have their own laws in addition to the federal ones.

jaggs

July 29th, 2014 at 10:37 PM ^

it's accompanied by a medical note from a doctor to treat a disease/symtom/chronic pain, then there would probably have to be accomodations. Could you tell an employee they aren't allowed to take their diabetes medication?

74polSKA

July 30th, 2014 at 7:56 AM ^

I think it would depend on your job duties. You can't really have someone toking up for their medical issues and then running heavy equipment or the like.

I personally don't think it matters if they legalize pot. Like guns, the problem with drugs isn't the substance itself. It's the people who want to abuse it and use it for the wrong purpose.

GoBLUinTX

July 30th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^

employees from working if the medicine they are ingesting can have negative impacts on their ability to perform their job, and to perform it in a safe manner to both themselves and others.   Not only can I, I am obligated to do so.  I would rather be sued by one employee because I wouldn't let them work while using prescribed pain medicine than to be sued by the familiy of a dead employee killed by the actions of the employee under the influence of prescription pain medication.  Nevermind that I could be charged with negligent homicide.

jaggs

July 30th, 2014 at 9:35 PM ^

the article mentions that accomodations such as perfoming jobs that will not be affected and such, but employer is in no way required to create a new postion or suffer unreasonable cost financially. 

Tyrone Biggums

July 29th, 2014 at 7:44 PM ^

I lived in California for 14 of the last 20 years and drug testing for THC at least is secondhand. Drug testing for it is usually a one time affaire upon hire and you are notified thirty days beforehand. AFTER that there is almost no drug testing for THC unliess it is warranted due to poor pormance on the job. If they changed this policy California would shut down as a state!

aratman

July 29th, 2014 at 6:31 PM ^

Isn't it odd that he will be suspended when one of his tests passed?   I wonder if those are the true results or if it is a little bit of disinformation from the lawyer.  I can't imagine this will make it past a labor arbitor.  Hell, I think I could lawyer up this one, one pass one fail that are that close I bet that the fail is within the calibration error of the system.  The 2 sample system is to verify results and it didn't so the results must be thrown out.   

MaizeNBlueTexan

July 29th, 2014 at 6:37 PM ^

Josh Gordon should immediately beat someone to within an inch of their life. Since it technically isn't murder, he will probably just get a 1 game suspension.

Mr. Yost

July 29th, 2014 at 6:37 PM ^

Because they just gave Rice 2 games and gave a seriel pothot and idiot a full season. People have been ALL over them for this. So they now have a reason to reverse course.

But it's the NFL, they're stubborn and they don't get things right like this.

...I now DON'T think he wins this...

Black Socks

July 29th, 2014 at 6:39 PM ^

I don't smoke it but it's legal where I live. No problems whatsoever. Who cares about marijuana non stories.

Wolfman

July 29th, 2014 at 7:06 PM ^

a certain amount, probably less than half an oz., I'd guess for their personal use.  I'm only guessing and going back to my college days, immediately following Vietnam, where it was common not to carry much more than an oz., on you when you left the house.  I have no doubt, I'd test positive to a degree just because everyone pulls out no matter where you are, and I cop a contact high as easily as I would if I were actually trying.  But I's suspect his exposure to smoke would have to be almost equally as great as mine for this defense to hold any seed. 

XM - Mt 1822

July 29th, 2014 at 8:14 PM ^

otherwise it's real tough to get that much into your system.  in michigan the michigan state police crime lab claims to be able to measure down to 1 ng (they flatter themselves), but unless someone has a MMMA card (michigan medical mj act) there is a 'zero tolerance' for TCH in a driver's system and measuring to 13-16 ng is not tough.   the feds are working on standards in the 5-7 ng range for being 'under the influence'.  

sadeto

July 29th, 2014 at 8:49 PM ^

Last I checked Rep. Polis from CO didn't have a single cosponsor for his bill, the "Lucid Act". I have been the principal investigator on a NHTSA study of impaired driving for several years and I know that Federal efforts to set a standard for THC levels and legal impairment are in the very preliminary stages. It's a subject of ongoing research but the metabolic characteristics of THC and the differential effects on judgement and motor control based on frequency of usage make it very difficult to set a standard that won't make criminals out of people who just aren't stoned. It's very different from alcohol in that regard. States have and will enact such legislation, and it will be challenged in the courts, but it's not going to be a federal standard in the near future.

UMxWolverines

July 29th, 2014 at 8:29 PM ^

Every marijuana suspension I hear about becomes more ridiculous. You got guys beating people up getting a few games (Chad Johnson, Ray Rice) and you suspend guys an entire year for smoking a plant. I'm gonna quote Kat Williams here: ''That shit ain't no drug. It's a plant and if you happen to set it on fire there might be some side effects. Drugs you gotta do shit to it chemically. I don't know the recipe I'm just sayin'!

bacon

July 29th, 2014 at 11:11 PM ^

If I'm the NFL, I excuse the pot suspension and suspend him for the season for his driving while impaired arrest earlier this month.

Mr. Yost

July 30th, 2014 at 7:30 AM ^

...Mr. Katt Williams

(NSFW) (excessive use of the N-word)

But this clip made me think of Gordon's excuse this time...it just sounds like something he'd think of when he was smoking the good stuff. And as Katt says..."aint nothing worse than a smart dumb (person)."