86spike said:You guys no that a substance addiction drives addicts to use all the time, right?
Given the t 1/2 of alcohol in the blood, there's a good chance that Gordon was drinking pretty frequently.
86spike said:You guys no that a substance addiction drives addicts to use all the time, right?
I think part of the idiot thing is that he doesn't appear to take any steps to avoid his addiction. Even when suspended he never went to rehab, his DUI was in a car given to him by a felon/drug dealer who has gotten him and other college athletes in trouble with the NCAA. If he cut ties with some of his old drug buddies and went to rehab people would have more sympathy, but he doesn't seem to even make an effort to do the things you have to do if you are serious about controlling your substance abuse problems.GeorgeCostanza said:I was pointing out how some addicts may appear to people who have no experience dealing with addicts. I'm certainly not saying addicts are idiots. If that were the case I'd have to admit half my family are idiots, which they are not.
That came out very Pete King-y and Im not sure why.
What is t 1/2?Devizier said:
Given the t 1/2 of alcohol in the blood, there's a good chance that Gordon was drinking pretty frequently.
86spike said:You guys no that a substance addiction drives addicts to use all the time, right?
No need to be so Manichean. Self-control is a hard thing for some people, but that doesn't make them addicts or idiots. I've screwed up many a good thing because of temptation in the moment, and maybe that makes me weak-willed, but nothing more. He's in his early 20s and he had a drink or two for all we know.
SumnerH said:
No, it doesn't.
It's the repeated inability to stop in the face of increasing consequences that essentially defines addiction. Non-addicts may get busted for a DUI or lose a relationship, but they realize that there was a problem and stop. People who go back to that behavior again and again are addicts. This is Gordon's 5th or 6th known problem over a 4 1/2 year period, just from college/NFL sanctions.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:I think if the non-addict could spend an hour living in the addict's brain, there's a decent chance we'd start treating addiction more like a broken arm or other medical condition than as a failure of "will power."
I think DDB means someone being an addict is an illness, whereas many people think it's caused simply by lack of will power.Devizier said:
A broken arm's a pretty bad analogy. I would lean more towards mental illness.
P'tucket said:You should probably do a little--and I mean a very little--reading on the nature of addiction before you post something like this.
Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV ShowsGeorgeCostanza said:" idiot with self control problems and a lack of respect for authority " is an apt description for a person with substance abuse problems as seen by those who haven't experienced what the disease of addiction can do to someone.
Devizier said:
A broken arm's a pretty bad analogy. I would lean more towards mental illness.
Yeah, its a bit off here, not entirely wrong though.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:Yeah, I was sort of talking about the disease itself and not so much how to treat it -- obviously it would be nice if all mental illnesses were treatable as easily as a broken arm. Hopefully, a neuroscience progresses, some day they will be.
My point was more that it's very likely or at least plausibly a real, physical condition, with physical and chemical causes, no different than a bone break. Or, at a minimum, that there are significant physical components along with psychological ones. It may be harder to identify, and current science may need to judge it somewhat less objectively, but I think the world would be a different place if we at least started the discussion by recognizing it as a real medical condition instead of some spooky inside-the-head thing that turns on how mentally "strong" or "weak" a person is.
I'm not a neuroscientist, and maybe one would tell me I'm completely full of shit, but what I was saying was that this might become crystal clear and obvious if we had the capacity to spend an hour living as a person who had the disease.
EricFeczko said:Third, the NIDA is notoriously awful at funding addiction research, because they rely on models that don't hold for primates and don't examine higher level scales of the brain appropriately.
Second-hand marijuana smoke?Grin&MartyBarret said:
SumnerH said:Second-hand marijuana smoke?
Either
A) He has the worst luck in the world, between getting caught in the tiny window for alcohol testing and getting caught in the even smaller window for second-hand marijuana smoking registering; or
B) He's using a lot more than he's claiming.
Either one on its own is barely plausible. Both together points strongly to (B).
Congrats to his lawyer, though.
SumnerH said:Second-hand marijuana smoke?
Either
A) He has the worst luck in the world, between getting caught in the tiny window for alcohol testing and getting caught in the even smaller window for second-hand marijuana smoking registering; or
B) He's using a lot more than he's claiming.
Either one on its own is barely plausible. Both together points strongly to (B).
Congrats to his lawyer, though.
His first test result (on the immunoassay test, which is tougher to fool) was 38 ng/ml. He then had pee tests (which are far easier to dilute) at the levels you say. You need prolonged exposure in a sealed chamber and immediate testing to trip that first test. It's barely plausible on its own; in combination with his other "unlucky" results there's a clear pattern.semsox said:I think the second-hand marijuana is very reasonable. The NFL limit at the time before the policy was revised was 15 ng/mL. It was reported (http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=11281430&src=desktop&wjb) that his A sample was 16 ng/mL and his B sample was 13.63 ng/mL. Other sports have a wildly higher threshold to trigger a positive test (MLB is 50 ng/mL, Olympic testing is 150 ng/mL). What kind of accuracy level do you think their assay has given that 2 samples from the same stream were ~2.5 ng/mL apart? Gordon was subject to an immense number of tests before finally 'failing' the marijuana one, so yes, I think it's very plausible that it was second hand smoke.
I think he meant that he was shotgunning?SumnerH said:Second-hand marijuana smoke?
Either
A) He has the worst luck in the world, between getting caught in the tiny window for alcohol testing and getting caught in the even smaller window for second-hand marijuana smoking registering; or
B) He's using a lot more than he's claiming.
Either one on its own is barely plausible. Both together points strongly to (B).
Congrats to his lawyer, though.
Absolutely.MalzoneExpress said:
You missed the most important part. The media treat him as mindlessly as they treat BB and the Patriots; therefore, we should trade for him to consolidate the media suck. Do you think Mallett for Gordon would be equitable?
I read the interview where he said he hasn't smoked since 2002 or whatever, but shotguns are done to get more smoke in your lungs to get you higher. That's not second hand smoke; it's first hand smoke powered down your throat until your entire chest is full of smoke. I haven't even heard that term since I was like 17.EricFeczko said:
What I do know is the following: I am not a drug addict; I am not an alcoholic; I am not someone who deserves to be dissected and analyzed like some tragic example of everything that can possibly go wrong for a professional athlete. And I am not going to die on account of the troubled state you wrongly believe my life to be in. I am a human being, with feelings and emotions and scars and flaws, just like anyone else. I make mistakes I have made a lot of mistakes but I am a good person, and I will persevere.
If I have a problem, it is that I am only 23 years old with a lot left to learn. Ive come a long way from those mean Fondren streets, but its clear that I can be a better me one who kids coming up to me for selfies and autographs can be proud of. I want that future for myself. And I truly believe that what I am going through right now will only make me stronger. I believe that my future is bright.
I thought the first immunoassay test was a urine test, and that the second test uses mass spectrometry?SumnerH said:His first test result (on the immunoassay test, which is tougher to fool) was 38 ng/ml. He then had pee tests (which are far easier to dilute) at the levels you say. You need prolonged exposure in a sealed chamber and immediate testing to trip that first test. It's barely plausible on its own; in combination with his other "unlucky" results there's a clear pattern.
e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25326203 showed levels above 20 ng/ml in a minority of smokers who were exposed to heavy hot-boxing, and they all dipped below that level in 4-6 hours. Nobody in a normally ventilated room showed anything in that range. That's pretty consistent with other studies on the topic. On its own you could maybe chalk it up to really bad luck; when combined with other results, the odds that it's all bad luck look vanishingly small.
crystalline said:I thought the first immunoassay test was a urine test, and that the second test uses mass spectrometry?
If so the MS test is going to be vastly more accurate than a paper measuring strip (typical immunoassay).
If you have mass spec results for a small molecule you should probably discount other measurements.
Plural as in years? Or moot?Apparently, the Browns and Gordon are negotiating about the lost year: http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/12/johnny_manziel_josh_gordon_bot.html. From the article:
I think both sides are correct here. As long as there is a rule on the books, you have to obey it, and it's crazy to put your incredibly high-paying job at risk over it. I can't see a lawsuit being successful here, as a previous post suggested.For the record I do use marijuana. The NFL has a policy in place where it is illegal to use. It's a job requirement that you pass a drug test. I've worked for an employer where drug use was illegal and we had to take a piss test as terms of employment.
The point is if you want to work for that organization, don't do it. For $10 million I could be clean as they wanted for as long as they were paying me. It's not a lifetime commitment.
The reasons go back to Len Bias's dying from an overdose of DRUGS in the 1980's and the decision as a society at that time that DRUGS were the biggest problem we faced. (Larry Bird said so himself.)So why - what is the logic behind the purpose of a suspension of the NFL for having used marijuana?
Respectfully, I don't think you can put ANY of this on the Browns. I mean, yeah, it must suck playing for a rudderless, out of the running team. And having a good support system in place would likely help. It could not hurt.Playing for that disaster of an organization could turn nearly anyone to pot to try and find a happy place. Seriously you are wasting talent playing for an organization that gives Johnny cocaine Manziel that many chances? I'd be high all the time also, the NFL is a one hit away league. It still blows me away that something that is now legal in many states(and I believe will be nationally in 5-7 years) with studies showing reduction in concussion recovery time is treated like this. I may be in the 5% on this one, but it's just crazy to me that this carries career ending repercussions in 2016, I hope that someday we can look back at these cases and laugh about how once the NFL dumped Roger it all turned around because the path we're on right now has the NFL dead in a decade.
On the other hand - do you think the Browns would take a 6th rounder? It would be a lottery ticket, but the kid when not suspended is an insanely proven talent which is a hell of a lot more than usual value at that level... Can a player under suspension looking for reinstatement even be traded? I found some articles seeming to indicate it can happen...
I think the Browns deserve some blame. Is Gordon's record/behavior so much worse than other players? From what I've read he seems comparable to many players and better than Hardy. The Browns approach has failed, it's possible the Cowboys would have failed with him as well.Respectfully, I don't think you can put ANY of this on the Browns. I mean, yeah, it must suck playing for a rudderless, out of the running team. And having a good support system in place would likely help. It could not hurt.
But our friend Aaron Hernandez played for a perennial winner, had role model teammates (or at least some guys like that) and the Pats are known as a first class organization with respect to how they treat their players.
To me, this all comes down to really stupid individual choices, and the blame is entirely on Josh Gordon, with no excuses for finding a happy place with pot (or anything else that would deprive him of enough money to be set for life if it was properly managed). The guy is clearly a mess.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't want the Pats to try to pry him away for the Browns down the road, not that I think that's likely from either side.
I had thought that the drug testing schedule was fairly predictable as long as you have not had a positive test and been entered into the "program." Once you've been caught, I was under the impression that they can and will test you randomly at any point during the season or offseason.It's been pretty well established how easy it is to avoid being busted for pot in the NFL testing schedule. Is the rule antiquated and on its way out? Yes. Does it take a moron to be unable to work the system and avoid a violation? Yes.
I have no sympathy for these guys and I say that as an occasional pot user and someone that thinks it should be legal. But they have a schedule for testing. If they pass in the offseason they don't get tested again. That test is lined up far in advance. If you can't get your shit together and stop smoking pot to pass the one test a year you deserve what you get. The NFL turns a blind eye to a lot of drug use, but they can only help so much.