OT-Josh Gordon faces season long suspension

Submitted by maizenblue92 on

Cleveland WR Josh Gordon is facing a season long suspension for a failed drug test (his second). The drug in this case is marijuana. Basically the most Cleveland Browns thing ever.

Article Here

Rhino77

May 9th, 2014 at 6:35 PM ^

Even if "legal" the NFL can still have it on their "banned" list. Half the stuff at GNC can put you on the list and that's legal.

How about you're making millions so put down the joints for a few years, play ball, get rich, retire at 30 and smoke all the weed you want then?

thisisme08

May 9th, 2014 at 6:48 PM ^

You do realize that an employer can make anything they want llegal right? If i'm not mistaken UPS drivers cannot have any alcohol in their system when they are out driving hence if they want to party they need to allot enough time to sober up even though it's not a crime unless your over .08 in most states.  Legalizing it has nothing to do with it.  

PurpleStuff

May 9th, 2014 at 6:57 PM ^

This is a common misconception.  It is not "legal" to drive with a BAC below .08.  Anyone who is deemed to be "impaired" can be convicted.  Having a BAC measured at or above .08 simply means you are presumed to be impaired in most jurisdictions.  California, for example, hits drivers with two charges, one for impairment and one for having a measured BAC at or above the legal limit, which is another crime by statute. 

MGoKalamazoo

May 9th, 2014 at 7:12 PM ^

Kentucky has the "if you blow you go" law, meaning any amount of alcohol in your system gets you a night in jail and at least a wreckless driving charge. Most dry counties will add a dui charge as well.

Unicycle Firefly

May 9th, 2014 at 7:07 PM ^

True, but I'm fairly certain that weed is probably on the NFL's banned substance list due to the fact that it's illegal.  It actually wouldn't make much sense to not have it on a banned list if it isn't legal.  If it were legalized, I imagine it would probably be taken off the list, seeing as it isn't any more harmful than alcohol.

vablue

May 9th, 2014 at 10:30 PM ^

Well, you could argue that smoking weed could hurt performance and thus the nFL would not want its employees taking it because it hurts their ability to do their job, or to optimize their performance. I actually would find that even more compelling than the fact that it is illegal.

TheNema

May 10th, 2014 at 4:49 AM ^

Alcohol would hurt performance significantly worse than cannabis and there is no policy against it. Pot has been found to have neuroprotective properties where alcohol can have damaging effects on the brain days after you haven't had a drop. 

vablue

May 10th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^

No way that breathing smoke into your lungs makes you better. Second, I don't think número protective properties means what you think it means. I have known a lot of folks who have started to smoke pot, there is nothing I have seen to make me believe it does not hurt athletic performance.

SituationSoap

May 10th, 2014 at 7:45 PM ^

No, they can't actually do that. It wouldn't just be a PR nightmare, it would be considered wrongful termination due to unreasonable demands (you also can't fire someone because they won't go live on the Sun). 

 

Employers can't actually do whatever the hell they want in this country. They used to, and then they abused it and we passed laws making that illegal. 

Rhino77

May 9th, 2014 at 6:58 PM ^

Did I miss something? Did he go to "jail" for smoking it?

These guys are getting paid huge amounts of money to play a game. There are plenty of rec leagues that will allow you to smoke weed and play ball. If the NFL says don't do something, don't do it.

The merits of it being "legal" or not doesn't really matter. My employer has all kinds of rules I find silly...but I follow them and stay employed.

JHendo

May 9th, 2014 at 8:04 PM ^

I worked for a well known tech company where getting caught smoking a goddamned perfectly legal cigarette was grounds for termination, even when off company property, and even when off the clock.  Matter of fact, they'd have building security send some one out to do hourly sweeps of the property and a little bit off of it with a major focus on finding smokers.  A guy I know actually lost his job over it while "getting caught" smoking a cigarette by supervisor outside a coffee shop a block away before his shift (not company time).

It's complete bullshit, but like others have said, a company/organization has the right to ban any substance or activity (that's not protected under the anti-discrimation act) which it feels is not in it's best interest for their employees to partake in.

Nitro

May 9th, 2014 at 8:07 PM ^

Could Coke fire employees if they drank a Pepsi in the lunch room or at home? If a company bans its employees from eating carrots, would that be within their rights?  What about banning its employees from drinking water?  Just curious -- you're saying the employees wouldn't have any legal recourse for something like that?

JHendo

May 10th, 2014 at 12:31 AM ^

If what you are doing is not protected by the anti-discrimation act, it's my understanding that you have no legal recourse for a stupid silly reason for termination (like smoking or drinking Pepsi).  Additionally, most states aren't required to give a reason for termination.  So, if management is smart enough to utlilize the company's right to terminate without formal cause and just say "you're fired" without an explaination (and you're in a non-service letter state), then there most certainly isn't anything you can do about it.

JamieH

May 9th, 2014 at 11:52 PM ^

I spent 10 years at a well known tech company where they gave us free beer on Friday, and a not insignificant % of the developer base spent their weekends baked out of their minds.  I'm guessing your tech company wasn't on the west coast like mine was.

JHendo

May 10th, 2014 at 12:22 AM ^

It was in Arizona (unsurprisingly), and it was a company that gave the impression to it's consumers and the public that it was a wild and crazy place.  Yeah, not so much.

JamieH

May 10th, 2014 at 2:07 AM ^

Ironically everyone thought we were a bunch of stick-in-the-mud suit-wearing IBM types.which was about 180 degrees from reality.  One guy I worked with for 3 years and I don't think I ever saw him wear actual shoes to work even once.  I don't think he had cut his hair in a decade either (yes, this guy was the actual definition of a long-hared hippie).  Just goes to show you don't really know what goes on at a company unless you are on the inside I guess.  As long as you weren't customer-facing they didn't really care about anything as long as you worked hard and didn't get yourself arrested.  They probably would have gotten pissed at people for smoking pot at work but as long as people did it at home, kept it private and didn't come to work baked, it just wasn't an issue.  I probably caused more problems coming to work sleep-dreprived from MMORPG-addictions than any of the pot-heads did. :)

Haywood Jablomy

May 9th, 2014 at 10:22 PM ^

The legality and the suspension are undeniably correlated. I realize it sounds really mature and responsible to say, just stop smoking it, like any other job, make your money then party on but the reality is if it wasn't illegal and it doesn't enhance your performance there woudl be no reason for the NFL to ban it.  Case in point-- players don't get suspended for smoking tabacco, yet it reflects poorly on both the league and the individul smoking.

MGoGrendel

May 9th, 2014 at 8:35 PM ^

cold medicine or diet pills that can make someone test positive for banned substances. The players know what they can eat/drink and what they can't. Mark McGwire (claimed) he was using muscle builder from GNC. Kept it at his locker for all to see. At the time, a key ingredient was not on the MLB banned list.

Nitro

May 9th, 2014 at 7:52 PM ^

Hear, hear!  It's actually a vegetable we should eat like broccoli and lettuce (the whole thing -- flowers, stems, leaves, and seeds).  If it's consumed raw, it's not even psychoactive and actually way more superhealthy for you than anything else out there deemed to be a superfood.  If it's ingested after being heated, it's still pretty healthy and also enjoyable and safe.  It's not just ridiculous for it to be illegal or banned by any state or organization, it's actually an outrageous assualt on our collective health, as it's somethng from which we, the human species, evolved over hundreds of thousands of year to derive a substantial amount of benefit.  The collective ignorance and acceptance by the general population kills us all a little more every day.

go16blue

May 10th, 2014 at 7:37 AM ^

Come on dude. Cocaine is a plant. Opium is a plant. Plants can still be dangerous drugs. There is a massive amount of overwhelmingly good arguments for the legalization of marijuana... but saying "it's a plant, not a drug" makes the rest of us look dumb.

TIMMMAAY

May 10th, 2014 at 6:16 PM ^

Cocaine is not a plant, it is a derivative of a plant. You don't snort coca leaves, nor smoke them. Opium isn't a plant, again, it is a derivative of a plant. Cannabis is a plant. This is fact.

The end.