Anton is absolutely right. The moons of this planet are what might be promising. The planet itself is almost certainly out of the question.

Let's talk about surface gravity - the formula is g/ge = (m/me)/((r/re)^2)
where g is surface gravity, m is mass and r is radius, and the ones followed by an e are the same values for earth. The planet is 1800 times the mass of the earth so that gives us m/me. If it is terrestrial, as you assume, then it's density is similar to the earth's, which means it's radius must be the cube root of 1800 = 12.2 times the earth's radius. Putting them in the formula, we get a surface gravity of 12 times the earth's.

I'd argue with your assertion that we could adapt to gravity of 2 g's on an ongoing basis, but no one could ever expect us to adapt to 12 g's. That would kill in minutes at best.

So even if it is a giant terrestrial planet, it is uninhabitable on that basis alone. Others have mentioned a variety of other reasons that would make it inhospitable. The energy required to get in and out of that immense gravity well is another practical issue.

But it's moons are much more promising. 3 of 4 gas giants in our solar system have relatively large moons. However, to hold an atmosphere this close to a star, an object has to be larger than Mars. We don't see any moons like that in our solar system, but we don't have any planets that arte 5.7 times as big as Jupiter either, so maybe it has a large enough moon.

With any luck, there might be a large moon far enough out to avoid the incredible radiation belts that undoubtedly surround this thing. Still, the immense tides that such a moon would suffer would likely be the big issue. Surface water is necessary for life, but close to a planet like this one, tides would wash right around the planet on a twice daily basis.

Maybe a trojan would be a better candidate?