• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Cleveland Browns (2014 Season)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BayBuck said:
Actually it seems like the Ohio language I quoted refers to "negative" testing and reporting, but I don't see in that language how it would prohibit the NFL guidelines from having its separate thresholds for initial and confirmatory testing:
"The “B” bottle Test need only show that the substance, revealed in the “A” bottle Test, is evident to the “limits of detection” to confirm the results of the “A” bottle Test."

The first is negative under 15, the second is negative under 3: so neither is negative in this case. I mean, I can see the argument the other way, but there's going to be big time lawyers on both sides of this thing.
Click to expand...

What your describing is what the NFL policy is. Except its not exactly that. (and I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a drug test failer... yet)

NFL: Over 15 ppm on sample one = Positive. Over 3ppm* on sample 2 confirms the presence of the metabolites in the sample.

Very important point. If you flipped Gordon's sample in this model. IE, if sample 2 had said sample 1 on the side, it would have been Under 15ppm, and as such NEGATIVE. The "Positive" and "Negative" thresholds here only refer to the 15 ppm limit. NFL is positive and confirm. Not positive and positive.

Ohio is saying that they both need to be "positive" which in this case is 15.

This isn't really even at issue, and I don't know if the drug free workplace thing you're referencing has anything to do with it. Long story short though, the issue at question is indeed "jurisdiction" and to federal bargaining laws override the Ohio Workplace Laws (whatever the relevant statutes may be).

Now, the kicker. The NFL has a lot to lose if they lose the argument about which is the correct application. If it is determined that the NFL should have been adhering to the state law in this case, and they reported Gordon Positive, they broke the law in doing that and he could have a defamation case among other sanctions they could face for doing that.

*I don't know what the NFL uses for a "confirmatory" test limit, though it may indeed be 3.
 
Upvote 0
AKAK said:
What your describing is what the NFL policy is. Except its not exactly that. (and I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a drug test failer... yet)

NFL: Over 15 ppm on sample one = Positive. Over 3ppm* on sample 2 confirms the presence of the metabolites in the sample.

Very important point. If you flipped Gordon's sample in this model. IE, if sample 2 had said sample 1 on the side, it would have been Under 15ppm, and as such NEGATIVE. The "Positive" and "Negative" thresholds here only refer to the 15 ppm limit. NFL is positive and confirm. Not positive and positive.

Ohio is saying that they both need to be "positive" which in this case is 15.

This isn't really even at issue, and I don't know if the drug free workplace thing you're referencing has anything to do with it. Long story short though, the issue at question is indeed "jurisdiction" and to federal bargaining laws override the Ohio Workplace Laws (whatever the relevant statutes may be).

Now, the kicker. The NFL has a lot to lose if they lose the argument about which is the correct application. If it is determined that the NFL should have been adhering to the state law in this case, and they reported Gordon Positive, they broke the law in doing that and he could have a defamation case among other sanctions they could face for doing that.

*I don't know what the NFL uses for a "confirmatory" test limit, though it may indeed be 3.
Click to expand...
If the NFL is having problems with Ohio law when it comes to testing how are they ever going to suspend a player who fails a drug test in Colorado or one of the other states where marijuana is legal. I know they are going to change the rules in the future but if Gordon was in Colorado when he was caught I do not understand how the NFL could do anything to him.
 
Upvote 0
LitlBuck said:
If the NFL is having problems with Ohio law when it comes to testing how are they ever going to suspend a player who fails a drug test in Colorado are one of the other states where marijuana is legal. I know they are going to change the rules in the future but if Gordon was in Colorado when he was caught I do not understand how the NFL could do anything to him.
Click to expand...

Employers in Colorado can still require people to pass drug screens.
 
Upvote 0
AKAK said:
Ohio is saying that they both need to be "positive" which in this case is 15.
Click to expand...

Except it's really not saying something so specific in any clear way (it actually refers to federal thresholds which I believe are even higher), but as I said I understand the general argument to that effect.

Which is all kind of beside the point anyway... because I don't know that we've officially heard much more than "secondhand smoke" as their basis for appeal, which has always sounded like a loser IMO. But it really is starting to feel like extra-legal considerations will factor into a pro-Gordon decision here.
 
Upvote 0
BayBuck said:
Except it's really not saying something so specific in any clear way (it actually refers to federal thresholds which I believe are even higher), but as I said I understand the general argument to that effect.

Which is all kind of beside the point anyway... because I don't know that we've officially heard much more than "secondhand smoke" as their basis for appeal, which has always sounded like a loser IMO. But it really is starting to feel like extra-legal considerations will factor into a pro-Gordon decision here.
Click to expand...

I don't know that we've officially heard anything.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top