Cleveland Browns: Gordon’s absence may be more privacy than conspiracy

It seems everyone has an opinion about Josh Gordon’s absence from the Cleveland Browns. Many of these “opinions” are speculation. In fairness, Gordon’s history does give reason to suspect the worst. But when does silence just mean silence?

Ever since Cleveland Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon announced that he would miss the start of training camp as part of his ongoing treatment for substance abuse and its accompanying issues with mental health and anxiety, fans and media have actively speculated on the “real” reasons.

This is one of the “calmer” tweets from ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith:

He failed a test.

He didn’t fail a test, but he knew he would and got into the “protection” of rehab before he could test positive.

He will be suspended. He won’t be suspended.

It’s easy to understand. The information from all parties involved has been, for lack of a better word, incomplete. Even this report from ESPN Insider Adam Schefter has not stopped the speculation.

I’m not a lawyer. I’m not an expert on HIPPA law. But I do have a personal experience that leads me to believe that you really can read too much into silence. Let me explain.

A few years ago, I had a co-worker who had a serious, chronic medical condition. They did not disclose the illness prior to being hired (privacy laws). However, after a few months, a string of absences forced her to confide in me, their manager.

More from Browns News

• How the Browns could maximize Nick Chubb in 2023
• Can Deshaun Watson get to Patrick Mahomes level for Cleveland Browns?
• 3 Cleveland Browns who should see an expanded role in 2023 and 1 who should not
• Is Marcus Davenport on the Browns radar in 2023?
• 5 Free agents from Super Bowl LVII Cleveland Browns should target

I told the employee I would have to disclose what they told me with Human Resources. Together, we worked out a solution, but I was told that I, under no circumstances, could disclose anything the employee had told me to anyone (privacy laws). As if that wasn’t clear enough, I was told in no uncertain terms that doing so would result in my termination.

This may sound easy, after all, there’s only one answer you can give. But in a small business, it’s not. I had a lot of my direct reports flat out question my competency and accuse me of favoritism. Even with upper management “having my back”, it wasn’t easy to “not answer” their legitimate questions.

Eventually, the employee made the decision to confide in their co-workers and the issue went away. But that had to be their decision. We couldn’t force them to do it.

I bring this up because the Cleveland Browns could probably explain Gordon’s absence easily. But they can’t. They legally can’t. They would be better off saying nothing at all. But the questions will still get asked.

I understand that the explanation of privacy does not explain why Gordon’s reinstatement would have to be approved by the NFL. But, then again, I don’t know what is written in the fine print of his reinstatement. He is already subject to the strictest conditions possible.

The only person who can give the complete explanation is Josh Gordon. Whether he will or won’t is up to him. In a society where high-profile entertainers and athletes seem all too willing to share personal details, we may wonder why he chooses to remain quiet. But he does. So we wait.

I may be wrong. There may be a more “difficult” end to this story. And if I am, the one who loses the most is Josh Gordon, not the Cleveland Browns. While we wait, just remember that sometimes silence isn’t a satisfactory answer. But it may be the only one we can have.