re: Josh gordon suspended for the year

The circumstances do not have to be similar. The major ruling out of Starcaps was that a federal court found that the NFL is bound by state drug testing laws.

If Gordon's lawyers can find an Ohio drug testing law that the NFL ostensibly ran afoul of (including something like sample preservation or chain of custody), then they can file suit and ask for an injunction.

They might lose, but they could let him play in the interim.

Here is a good timeline for Starcaps:
LINK

They would have to go through the same process in Ohio state court.

LINK

Decent article from a few weeks ago explaining what could/would happen if Gordon lost appeal and sued the NFL.

quote:

---

9th round keeper. Could have had Vereen instead 

---

Yeah don't do that

Has a substance abuse suspension ever been overturned or reversed after a law suit?

That's what Im thinking. If it's so easy to file an injunction which would allow the suspended player to play, every guy who has ever been suspended would be filing one, you'd think. Guy is a 3rd time offender, and has two run ins with the police since his suspensions (one a DUI).

The Browns have been saying all along they have been planning on playing without Gordon this season. They obviously weren't planning for an injunction.

Can a substance abuse suspension be overturned or reversed from a law suit?

Honest question... I know the new CBA has some stipulations about what has to go through arbitration as opposed to litigation. Is this even something that can go to courts??

ETA: found the answer to my own question in one of the articles posted above

quote:

---

Agreement Not To Sue

Salfino also asked about the agreement between the NFLPA and NFL not to sue each other. That agreement is contained in Article III, Section 2 of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The agreement not to sue is an agreement about issues arising out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not the Substance Abuse Policy. In fact, Section 2 of the CBA lists the terms of the agreement that they won’t sue each other over—the Substance Abuse Policy is not listed.

What is mentioned, however, is that the players retain the right to enforce labor laws. And those laws are what Gordon will use to attack the NFL’s finding that his drug test was positive—or at least he should.

Because Gordon has such a solid case against the NFL based on the Ohio drug-testing laws, I believe his TRO will be granted and he will play in the 2014 season. This is all assuming he loses his appeal, which he shouldn’t.

---

quote:

---

If it's so easy to file an injunction which would allow the suspended player to play

---

I'm not familiar with Ohio law, but in Louisiana I could see a judge signing an injunction.

quote:

---

The NFL giving 16 games for second hand smoke and 2 games for domestic violence is beyond the pale.

---

repppppeaaaaattttt offfffffenddddddderrrrrrrrrrrrr

quote:

---

That's what Im thinking. If it's so easy to file an injunction which would allow the suspended player to play, every guy who has ever been suspended would be filing one, you'd think.

---

Players can only file suit and get an injunction if the CBA testing procedures violate state law. Most players who get suspended, the testing procedure was perfectly fine. Gordon's case is much more uncommon in that if they had tested his B sample instead of the A sample, it would not be deemed a positive result. He also presented a lot of evidence regarding he processing of his sample.

Ohio has laws regarding drug testing in relation to its Worker's Comp program. The NFL gets plenty of use out of state worker's comp plans. If those regulations apply to the Cleveland Browns, then Gordon probably has a strong enough showing to get a TRO.

Would the fact that he was a 3rd time offender in the NFL (codeine and weed), failed 3 test for herb in college, has a recent DWI under his belt change anything? Does the college stuff and DWI come into play any?