Goodell takes step in right direction re: Cheating

[superpunk]

With confidence in NFL rules oversight at low ebb, commissioner Roger Goddell is proposing enacting easier-to-impose cheating penalties as a deterrent for future SpyGate scandals, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

The newspaper cited a memo sent to the league's competition committee Thursday in an article on its Web site and said the proposals included a change in rules that would allow league officials to make unannounced inspections of locker rooms, press boxes and in-game communications equipment.

The measure was among a series of stricter rule changes Goodell wants to enact before next season "to preserve the integrity of the game" and "maintain public confidence" in the sport, according to the memo.

"As the Commissioner and Competition Committee, we must take every appropriate step to safeguard the integrity of the NFL," Goodell wrote in the memo. "We have already taken some positive and significant actions this past season, but we must go further to ensure fair competition amongst our 32 teams and maintain public confidence in our game."

Goodell pledged stricter penalties for competition-rules violations and proposed a plan requiring team employees to give the league reports of "actual or suspected" violations.

Another measure would place each franchise's main owner, top executive and head coach under the threat of league discipline to stipulate that they have complied with the rules and reported violations.

The commissioner also endorsed a proposal to permit one defensive player per team to be connected to a coach on the sideline during games via a wireless device, and called upon the committee to conduct "a thorough review" of all competitive rules and practices.

"I think there are a number of steps that should be taken in advance of the start of the 2008 season to improve and strengthen the enforcement procedures designed to preserve the competitive integrity of the game," Goodell wrote, adding that "too often, competitive violations have gone unpunished because conclusive proof of the violation was lacking."

Last month, Sen. Arlen Specter questioned the quality of the NFL's investigation of the New England Patriots' videotaping practices and Goodell's decision to destroy video evidence uncovered by the league earlier this season.

Goodell fined New England coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and docked the team $250,000 and a first-round draft pick after the Patriots were accused of videotaping New York Jets defensive coaches as they signaled to players during the Sept. 9 season opener.

Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also cited NFL officials indicating the Patriots taped Pittsburgh Steelers' coaches during AFC Championship games at the end of the 2001 and 2004 seasons, and during regular-season games in 2002 and 2004.

Still needs concrete standards and punishments, but this is a start.

[burmafrd]

He will have to get permission from the Owners before he can ramp up straightforward penalties for other then players.

[hendog]

Goodell's handling of Spygate is a joke.

[CaptainAmerica]

Basically he's admitting they overlooked and/or covered up the past violations and now to make up for it they are going to get tougher.

The whole league is in cover-up, denial, "let's move on" mode.

Can you imagine the hit to the league's credibilty if it came out that a team cheated in a SB? It would be horrible for the league's pristine image.

[Eddie]

Goodell's handling of Spygate is a joke.

I concur. The entire episode was a lame cover-up.

[Sam I Am]

Always the right answer to cheating...

http://blogs.trb.com/sports/football/jets/blog/guillotine.gif

[Hostile]

I definitely think the Defense should have a radio receiver on the field too.

[Boysboy]

Eh........too little, too late. They had a chance to take care of this a long time ago(even before Spygate-i.e. defensive players getting radio communication), and they did nothing.

The damage has already been done.

[PullMyFinger]

Always the right answer to cheating...

http://blogs.trb.com/sports/football/jets/blog/guillotine.gif


Hehe.

[THUMPER]

He will have to get permission from the Owners before he can ramp up straightforward penalties for other then players.

Another measure would place each franchise's main owner, top executive and head coach under the threat of league discipline to stipulate that they have complied with the rules and reported violations.

Yeah, and the owners will be quick to impose possible penalties on themselves. :rolleyes:

[THUMPER]

Basically he's admitting they overlooked and/or covered up the past violations and now to make up for it they are going to get tougher.

The whole league is in cover-up, denial, "let's move on" mode.

Can you imagine the hit to the league's credibilty if it came out that a team cheated in a SB? It would be horrible for the league's pristine image.

Exactly. Nothing to see here, move along, move along...

[TheCount]

"I think there are a number of steps that should be taken in advance of the start of the 2008 season to improve and strengthen the enforcement procedures designed to preserve the competitive integrity of the game," Goodell wrote, adding that "too often, competitive violations have gone unpunished because conclusive proof of the violation was lacking."

So when he gets conclusive proof, he promptly destroys it?

Please. If he wants, he can start by giving the Pats a real punishment instead of saying, "We're going to really nail the next guy to the wall!".

Now it just won't seem fair. They wrist-slapped the first guy, and now the rest of the league has to put up with this crap because the world outside of New England thought the punishment was a joke.

[Chocolate Lab]

Good... Maybe this will stop the BS of headsets mysteriously dying on crucial drives on the road, etc.

Just play the game the right way and let the best team win.

[tyke1doe]

The real issue may be that "cheating" is more prevalent than what fans expect.

[BraveHeartFan]

This whole situation makes me laugh. The only people who will be 'shocked' by the idea that every team cheats, in some manner or way (Even in Superbowls) are people who are completely niave.

If anyone thinks that New England is the ONLY team whose ever done this then you really have a very rose colored outlook on life.

I have zero doubt that there are individuals (Be it players or coaches or management or whatever) on every single team that cheat in some form, or fashion, in an attempt to help their team, or themselves, get ahead.

[TheCount]

This whole situation makes me laugh. The only people who will be 'shocked' by the idea that every team cheats, in some manner or way (Even in Superbowls) are people who are completely niave.

If anyone thinks that New England is the ONLY team whose ever done this then you really have a very rose colored outlook on life.

I have zero doubt that there are individuals (Be it players or coaches or management or whatever) on every single team that cheat in some form, or fashion, in an attempt to help their team, or themselves, get ahead.

Oh really? Well in that case let's just forget the whole thing and let everyone do what they want.

Everyone does it, so why bother.

[Yeagermeister]

Oh really? Well in that case let's just forget the whole thing and let everyone do what they want.

Everyone does it, so why bother.

As they say in racing. If you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin :D

[tyke1doe]

So when he gets conclusive proof, he promptly destroys it?

Please. If he wants, he can start by giving the Pats a real punishment instead of saying, "We're going to really nail the next guy to the wall!".

Now it just won't seem fair. They wrist-slapped the first guy, and now the rest of the league has to put up with this crap because the world outside of New England thought the punishment was a joke.

It's all in the way you look at it. Usually, when you have a first-time infraction, you're basically "feeling" your way through a process, especially when you have no rules or punishments to refer to. You don't always know what the appropriate action is because there is no precedence.

Now that this has occurred, it provides the opportunity to seriously examine the issue and to determine appropriate punishment. That's the way it is with the drug-testing policy. Initially, there was no such policy so one had to be adopted with the proper procedures and penalties.

[rguido]

All i know is when SMU got caught cheating they made an example out of them...
then again it doesnt look like they stopped anything

[Boysboy]

All i know is when SMU got caught cheating they made an example out of them...
then again it doesnt look like they stopped anything

The only difference b/w SMU and Ohio State/Florida/Fl State/Alabama/Michigan/USC, etc, etc is that the former GOT CAUGHT.

Otherwise, it's been going on for many years, and will continue to do so.

If anything, Belichick was actually more stupid than cheating. For one, Goodell warned him in a letter before the season. And two, it WAS the J-E-T-S...was it really necessary?

Otherwise, teams like the Eagles, Packers, etc continued to have their opposing teams' headsets blow out during critical drives of the game on their turf throughout last season.

[BraveHeartFan]

Oh really? Well in that case let's just forget the whole thing and let everyone do what they want.

Everyone does it, so why bother.


Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they shouldn't try and clean it up. It just cracks me up the people who honestly think that it's been handled improperly because people would be "shocked" if it was found out that the league was full of people who cheat.

My point is that there isn't anyone who regularly watches sports, of any kind, who aren't completely niave who actually believe that any team is completely clear of people who cheat.

[tyke1doe]

The only difference b/w SMU and Ohio State/Florida/Fl State/Alabama/Michigan/USC, etc, etc is that the former GOT CAUGHT.

Otherwise, it's been going on for many years, and will continue to do so.

If anything, Belichick was actually more stupid than cheating. For one, Goodell warned him in a letter before the season. And two, it WAS the J-E-T-S...was it really necessary?




And against a coach who knows you cheated previously because he was on your team. How dumb is that? :rolleyes: :laugh2:

[superpunk]

So when he gets conclusive proof, he promptly destroys it?

Please. If he wants, he can start by giving the Pats a real punishment instead of saying, "We're going to really nail the next guy to the wall!".

Now it just won't seem fair. They wrist-slapped the first guy, and now the rest of the league has to put up with this crap because the world outside of New England thought the punishment was a joke.
You've got to establish guidelines somewhere. Goodell's tenure has been marred by his inability to establish firm punishments for offenses, opting rather to be guided by his personal judgement and whimsy. This at least is a step in the right direction. In hindsight, he should have established clear punishments when he sent the memo out in the offseason - ie "If you're caught filming anymore we do so-and-so", and he would have been fine.

He effed it up, and he knows it. The only thing you can do from here on out is try and do better.

[REDVOLUTION]

Bottom Line: *** Goodell's Legacy will get an asterisk too ***

He came in as a no nonsense commish. Then he made some strong, firm decisions on players and coaches.

Spygate happened and he backed off. No more firm hand. Yes the facade of one was there... the stiff fines - but no suspensions.

No matter what he does from this point on. He will get an asterisk.

* The commish who tried to let the Patriots off the hook.

[Yeagermeister]

Bottom Line: *** Goodell's Legacy will get an asterisk too ***

He came in as a no nonsense commish. Then he made some strong, firm decisions on players and coaches.

Spygate happened and he backed off. No more firm hand. Yes the facade of one was there... the stiff fines - but no suspensions.

No matter what he does from this point on. He will get an asterisk.

* The commish who tried to let the Patriots off the hook.

So what does Tags get? He's the commish that ignored it like pretty much everything else.

[REDVOLUTION]

So what does Tags get? He's the commish that ignored it like pretty much everything else.

Tags was never presented with the situation of handling it. Goodell was. My guess is Tags would have let them off the hool too.


Its a little different for Roger.

A memo had just went out.
It was ignored.
Blatant disregard.

If he would have suspended coach he would be looked at in different light IMO.

[starman22]

So what does Tags get? He's the commish that ignored it like pretty much everything else.


He didn't get voted into the HOF. That's pretty much all they can do.

[khiladi]

Uh, the issue is that the Patriots cheated...

Imposing stricter regulations for the league in the future has no bearing on this issue, as well as him burning evidence...

[BraveHeartFan]

It will be questioned, and brought up, about his legacy as commish no matter what he does from here on out. He might be able to soften the thought on the situation, somewhat, if he shows some serious hardlined penalities from now on but people will always point out that he initially was not hard enough on the issue of cheating.

[Angus]

I suspect that Goodell already knows more bad stuff is soon to come out and is just trying to get ahead of the curve.

:cool:

[TheSkaven]

I hope that they also take up the act of calling time outs a second before the kicker kicks the football. I'm sure Wade has cooled down about that since the October game against the Bills, but that still sticks in my craw.

[TheCount]

You've got to establish guidelines somewhere. Goodell's tenure has been marred by his inability to establish firm punishments for offenses, opting rather to be guided by his personal judgement and whimsy. This at least is a step in the right direction. In hindsight, he should have established clear punishments when he sent the memo out in the offseason - ie "If you're caught filming anymore we do so-and-so", and he would have been fine.

He effed it up, and he knows it. The only thing you can do from here on out is try and do better.

I completely agree he needs to set some kind of standardized punishment scale in place. Not just for the players, but also for the people in suits and ties he actually sits and has dinner with.

For a guy that has suspended players for an entire year, at least one for two years, to turn around and suddenly go soft on executives is completely two faced.

I hope that they also take up the act of calling time outs a second before the kicker kicks the football. I'm sure Wade has cooled down about that since the October game against the Bills, but that still sticks in my craw.

I don't really see a problem with that in particular, it can work both ways. I'm pretty sure last year there was at least one kicker that missed the kick on the timeout and then hit it afterwards. Kickers should earn their money like everyone else.

I will admit that it's pretty stupid however that a coach can tell a ref to wait right here, I'm going to call a timeout right before he kicks it, and the ref actually does it.

[TEK2000]

We need to give Roy the earpiece on defense and have Drill Sgt. Hartmann on the sidelines ready to chew him out so that he'll get his butt in gear this season. :D

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews9/full-metal-jacket/full-metal-jacket-PDVD_00601.jpg

[EPL0c0]

Still needs concrete standards and punishments, but this is a start.
Too little...a year too late

[Doomsday101]

Too little...a year too late

Too late for what?

[EPL0c0]

Too late for what?
a step in the right direction on cheating... though I guess since he went so wrong the first time with the Patriots, any move from there is up

[REDVOLUTION]

It will be questioned, and brought up, about his legacy as commish no matter what he does from here on out.

He might be able to soften the thought on the situation, somewhat,

if he shows some serious hardlined penalities from now on but people will always point out that he initially was not hard enough on the issue of cheating.



Agreed.

Agreed.

Yes. How do you law down the law "I AM THE LAWGIVER" then change your philosophy and waffle. People will call it for what it was. He wanted to cover it up and hush-hush it ASAP. Too bad he has to answer for that... too bad for him.



a step in the right direction on cheating... though I guess since he went so wrong the first time with the Patriots, any move from there is up

Indeed. But his errors in his decisions are plain to see.

Moving forward.

[WoodysGirl]

Arena League seems ahead of NFL on Spygate

The Washington Post says it has acquired a copy of a memo from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell that says he wants simpler rules on cheating that will help avoid future SpyGate scandals. On its web site, the newspaper said the league also will consider making unannounced inspections of locker rooms, press boxes and in-game communications equipment.

Emulating the Arena Football League might be a simpler approach.

In season-opening games last weekend, the AFL allowed teams to have a defensive player wear a wireless communications device in his helmet, like the ones quarterbacks long have worn in the NFL and AFL.

That communications system eliminates the need for defensive coaches to use hand signals -- the action the New England Patriots were found to be filming, against NFL rules, that set off Spygate.

"There's no signal-stealing,'' says Shy Anderson, Chief Operating Officer of the Dallas Desperados and head of the Arena League's competition committee. "It was a matter of making it fair on both sides."

Anderson says the innovation wasn't inspired solely by Spygate. The AFL previously had considered it, but was put off by the expense -- about $25,000 per helmet.

"I was dumbfounded,'' says Anderson, who was an executive for 14 years with telecommunications giant ALLTEL. "I was like, let's just give them a cell phone and get on with it."

The AFL also had incentive to ease defensive communication issues, because coaching staffs work from different locations at each game, depending on the logistics at each stadium.

Anderson says his father-in-law, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, didn't play any role in encouraging him to test the defensive helmet. But Anderson he won't be surprised if the NFL adopts the change, "when they see the ease of doing this."

NFL owners considered making the change last season, but a proposal fell two votes short of passage. That proposal is expected to resurface soon.

One element of the Arena change the NFL is certain to ignore is letting broadcasters hear what's being said during helmet communications. But Anderson says that allows play-by-play announcers to better set the stage for each play, knowing where the offense is going, and what set the defense will use.

"It's a lot more exciting if you know what's going to happen," Anderson says.

One thing the helmet won't do, apparently, is end all hand-gesturing by defensive coaches. In season-opening games, Anderson says, some coaches still were flashing signals the traditional way.

"Old habits die hard, no question about it," Anderson says. "They just talk with their hands."

Posted by Tom Weir at 10:52 AM/ET, March 07, 2008 in NFL | Permalink

LINK (http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2008/03/arena-league-se.html)

[zeromaster]

There's an analogy about a barn door ...

[REDVOLUTION]

There's an analogy about a barn door ...


Yeah... how does it go?

Reporter: Roger, how did you get that black eye?
Rober: I walked into the barn door.

:lmao2:

[gollum]

So many things to respond to, I’m sure I’ll forget some of them:

proposals included a change in rules that would allow league officials to make unannounced inspections of locker rooms, press boxes and in-game communications equipment.

Press boxes, good…in-game communications equipment, good…locker rooms...as long as it is only on game day. At first, I interpreted it to mean team facilities away from the stadium, but I read it wrong. I think that is going too far.

The measure was among a series of stricter rule changes Goodell wants to enact before next season "to preserve the integrity of the game" and "maintain public confidence" in the sport, according to the memo.

I understand and I agree with. All sports are reactive. You can only do so much pre-emptive rule-initiating. There is no way to imagine every possible scenario that might occur in the nature of competition and what lengths an individual or organization will go to to succeed. You want to go back and punish sins of the past in a “fair” manner that will make everyone happy. As much as we think he went light on the Pats, as do the majority of the fans around the league, not everyone agrees or sees eye to eye with you. Should the commissioner have to take a poll of every fan, senator, owner, player, or housewife to make sure his punishment, an act that he alone has to bear the brunt of coming up with, is fair and just and fits the crime? I’m sure there are many people out there who thought the punishment was too severe, and not only Pats fans. Their real punishment came not from the league, but from the stigma they were labeled with… “CHEATERS”. That will live with them forever. Nothing the league did could harm them anymore than that, either in the short term or long term, save giving them the SMU penalty. Anyone really think that is the best solution? Why do you think SMU still has problems umpteen years after that occurred…people remember.

None of us know for certainty how many times the Pats did this, or what was said behind close doors between Goodell, Belicheck, Kraft, Tagliabue, or any other witness. Therefore, not a single one of us has all the information, but is just going by the gospel of the media who we abhor on one hand and bow down to with the other. We may not agree with the punishment, but we didn’t wear his shoes either.

Goodell pledged stricter penalties for competition-rules violations and proposed a plan requiring team employees to give the league reports of "actual or suspected" violations.

Good luck with that one Roger…I’ll rat my team out and even if you get me whistleblower protection, I’m sure I can get another job at my current level and opportunity for advancement with no fear of being black-balled.

Another measure would place each franchise's main owner, top executive and head coach under the threat of league discipline to stipulate that they have complied with the rules and reported violations.

You mean they aren’t already??? This is a business, right?

too often, competitive violations have gone unpunished because conclusive proof of the violation was lacking.

We are innocent until proven guilty aren’t we? There have always been and always will be accusations of cheating. No further needs to be said other than Redskins vs Cowboys vs Eagles. Not to leave the NYFG out of it, but I can’t recall off the top of my head an instance.

Last month, Sen. Arlen Specter questioned the quality of the NFL's investigation of the New England Patriots' videotaping practices and Goodell's decision to destroy video evidence uncovered by the league earlier this season……Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also cited NFL officials indicating the Patriots taped Pittsburgh Steelers' coaches during AFC Championship games at the end of the 2001 and 2004 seasons, and during regular-season games in 2002 and 2004.

Hmmm, Arlen Specter, Senator from Pennsylvania…home of the Eagles and Steelers, both with huge losses to the Patriots in recent history. Who gets him elected into office? Conspiracy? He seems to be in the middle of it often.
For those interested in knowing more about the man:
http://specter.senate.gov/public/
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/Fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

For my thoughts, which sometimes agree with and sometimes conflict with some of the posts here, I initially thought the punishment was too weak. I thought the league should have forced the Pats to forfeit the game to the Jets. Wouldn’t that have made an interesting storyline for the Super Bowl…would be undefeated, but for the one loss coming in. That would have been a nightmare for the league.

I thought the amounts of the fines were ok(Wade Wilson’s % was too of salary was too high, but they were two different events and one was technically against the law). It wasn't a small chunk of change regardless.

The draft choices…I think they should have had to forfeit the higher of the two choices at the end of the season, not “theirs”. Technically, San Francisco’s became “theirs” in the draft of 2007.

Looking back in hindsight, I would have probably done about the same punishment except making the draft choice forfeiture be #7 instead of #31. The reason is this. I know there was a rule. I know there was a letter. I know there was a slimy excuse. But, what harm was really done big picture that could not have been done from a front row stadium seat or private suite. Do you think technology is not to the point where they couldn’t get a good view from that much further? There are satellites that can read a license plate from outer space for goodness sake. Stealing signs and verbiages has always been a part of the league; that won't change. It was pure stupidity and arrogance and they got caught.

This is no longer unchartered territory, so it is correct NOW to address it and be specific about punishments for transgressions. To say that this is a joke or is worthless or is too late is quite frankly an uneducated and thought out response. Do you suggest that nothing be done? Put some teeth to a policy, make sure that there is no confusion from all teams, and move forward.

Let’s play!

[cowboyeric8]

Arena League seems ahead of NFL on Spygate

LINK (http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2008/03/arena-league-se.html)

The AFL does many things right. Its all about entertainment and the fans, and you have guys who just love to play football. And the different aspects of the game make it entertaining. But of course, I still love the NFL.

The AFL is also trying out new helmets that have sensors in them to detect concussions.

http://sports.espn.go.com/extra/afl/news/story?id=3269214

[tyke1doe]

You've got to establish guidelines somewhere. Goodell's tenure has been marred by his inability to establish firm punishments for offenses, opting rather to be guided by his personal judgement and whimsy. This at least is a step in the right direction. In hindsight, he should have established clear punishments when he sent the memo out in the offseason - ie "If you're caught filming anymore we do so-and-so", and he would have been fine.

He effed it up, and he knows it. The only thing you can do from here on out is try and do better.


Even though I've disagreed with you previously, I agree with your post here.

He may have been feeling his way through and maybe he should have suspended Belichick also. But he's trying to deal with the issue and establish some guidelines.

Of course, one could argue that despite him up, Tagliabue didn't do anything, even though the same thing occurred under his watch.

No action, no criticism.

[REDVOLUTION]

He may have been feeling his way through and maybe he should have suspended Belichick also. But he's trying to deal with the issue and establish some guidelines.

Of course, one could argue that despite him up, Tagliabue didn't do anything, even though the same thing occurred under his watch.

No action, no criticism.


Maybe a suspension? You are getting better ;)

Deal with the issue? He just wants it to go away.

What is it that Tagliabue didnt do? when presented with what? A team was caught cheating and he didnt do anything?

[gollum]

I knew I forgot something...
The destruction of the tapes...that bothered me more than anything. I list of the games of video tapes and notes turned in should have been turned into the owners of each team. That would further humiliate the organization...again...the worst punishment out of all of this. With that, a statement should have been made that publicly that said how many, but not who to the public and that no retribution for past occurences was feasible because it is not known beyond doubt that those tapes or notes affected the outcome of any game. It would be like saying we're going to make the Raiders forfeit every game that Tatum wore stickem and had an interception. You clarify the rule and move on. Probably a bad analogy, but a simple one.

[tyke1doe]

Maybe a suspension? You are getting better ;)

And you're late to the party. I said way back when that I wouldn't have been opposed to a Belichick suspension, especially since Wade Wilson got suspended.


Deal with the issue? He just wants it to go away.

Which is why he issued his latest directive. :rolleyes:


What is it that Tagliabue didnt do? when presented with what? A team was caught cheating and he didnt do anything?

You think Tagliabue didn't know that the Pats were cheating? You think Tagliabue didn't know cheating in general was practiced in the NFL?

Teams knew as far back as 2001 that the Pats were cheating. And Tagliabue - to my knowledge - didn't do anything about it. Nor did he issue any memos directing teams NOT to cheat this way - a memo, I might add, which suggests that Goodell knew it was going on otherwise why specifically clarify this violation of NFL policy.

Moreover, Tagliabue knew also of all the "bad" seeds within the NFL but did nothing about it. So it's easy not to criticism him because he didn't do anything.

Anytime you take a stand for something, you're going to get the second-guessers and those who call you a hypocrite because you appear to be unfair in your judgment. But Goodell took this assignment upon himself and had to start somewhere.

I cut him some slack because he's navigating uncharted waters.

[tyke1doe]

I knew I forgot something...
The destruction of the tapes...that bothered me more than anything. I list of the games of video tapes and notes turned in should have been turned into the owners of each team. That would further humiliate the organization...again...the worst punishment out of all of this. With that, a statement should have been made that publicly that said how many, but not who to the public and that no retribution for past occurences was feasible because it is not known beyond doubt that those tapes or notes affected the outcome of any game. It would be like saying we're going to make the Raiders forfeit every game that Tatum wore stickem and had an interception. You clarify the rule and move on. Probably a bad analogy, but a simple one.


You're advocating vengence not judgment.

Goodell wouldn't do that and neither would any sane boss.

The issue isn't humiliation. It's punishment. We may differ with respect to the punishment, but humiliation, in the way you've advocated, appears more a matter of juvenile vengence.

And, I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your analogy.

[gollum]

You're advocating vengence not judgment.

Goodell wouldn't do that and neither would any sane boss.

The issue isn't humiliation. It's punishment. We may differ with respect to the punishment, but humiliation, in the way you've advocated, appears more a matter of juvenile vengence.

And, I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your analogy.

Vengeance would have been giving them the death penalty, taking away all of their draft picks, or penalizing their salary cap limit(or lack thereof). I was merely suggesting that the throwing them to the wolves, aka the media, would serve to correct the problem. Remember when you were growing up, one of the biggest punishments you could ever get was not the paddle, but the humiliation for being pointed out that you did something wrong. The maladjusted children didn't mind this so much, but the normal, rational majority detested this treatment. It's like when you get the label of being a liar...it's hard to get rid of that tag. Roger is not the boss...just the moderator of this industry.

The analogy, I grant, was a poor one, but I knew that before I posted it. Just was hurting my brain too much to set work aside any longer to come up with a better one. The point was to contradict those people who think that there should be further punishment doled out for an issue that has already be addressed, albeit not to the satisfaction of some Salem residents.

[peplaw06]

The newspaper cited a memo sent to the league's competition committee Thursday in an article on its Web site and said the proposals included a change in rules that would allow league officials to make unannounced inspections of locker rooms, press boxes and in-game communications equipment.
Wha??

How they gonna do that without getting a search warrant???

[tyke1doe]

Wha??

How they gonna do that without getting a search warrant???

Yeah, I notice the league didn't include team offices and headquarters in the inspection in an attempt to find illegal tapes. :rolleyes:

The league is merely monitoring its games. When it inspects locker rooms, it's not going through anyone's personal belongings. (Of course, you should know this as a lawyer.) It's merely monitoring whether teams are reviewing game film that may have been taken illegally. Or the league is checking press boxes to see if anyone is video taping or to see if equipment is misused for the purposes of cheating.

That doesn't require a search warrant. It's merely a simple observation.

Moreover, as I stated with the drug policy, if individuals consent to the drug test - which you must do if you want to play in the NFL, there isn't an invasion of one's privacy - at least not legally.
This new procedure will be vented through the competition committee and will be something that teams, I assume, will agree upon.

But you know this as a lawyer. You're just trying to segregate points from their context because you're smarting from our former debate.

I would suggest you just let it go. You'll feel better, believe me. ;) :D

[tyke1doe]

Vengeance would have been giving them the death penalty, taking away all of their draft picks, or penalizing their salary cap limit(or lack thereof). I was merely suggesting that the throwing them to the wolves, aka the media, would serve to correct the problem. Remember when you were growing up, one of the biggest punishments you could ever get was not the paddle, but the humiliation for being pointed out that you did something wrong. The maladjusted children didn't mind this so much, but the normal, rational majority detested this treatment. It's like when you get the label of being a liar...it's hard to get rid of that tag. Roger is not the boss...just the moderator of this industry.

The analogy, I grant, was a poor one, but I knew that before I posted it. Just was hurting my brain too much to set work aside any longer to come up with a better one. The point was to contradict those people who think that there should be further punishment doled out for an issue that has already be addressed, albeit not to the satisfaction of some Salem residents.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think you hit it on the head. When you were a child, humiliation was a fitting punishment. It's not so much when you're an adult. You let the circumstances bring humiliation. You don't work that into the punishment for an adult.

The Pats have suffered enough public humiliation. It didn't need to be a part of their official punishment.

[peplaw06]

Yeah, I notice the league didn't include team offices and headquarters in the inspection in an attempt to find illegal tapes. :rolleyes:

The league is merely monitoring its games. When it inspects locker rooms, it's not going through anyone's personal belongings. (Of course, you should know this as a lawyer.) It's merely monitoring whether teams are reviewing game film that may have been taken illegally. Or the league is checking press boxes to see if anyone is video taping or to see if equipment is misused for the purposes of cheating.

That doesn't require a search warrant. It's merely a simple observation.

Moreover, as I stated with the drug policy, if individuals consent to the drug test - which you must do if you want to play in the NFL, there isn't an invasion of one's privacy - at least not legally.
This new procedure will be vented through the competition committee and will be something that teams, I assume, will agree upon.

But you know this as a lawyer. You're just trying to segregate points from their context because you're smarting from our former debate.

I would suggest you just let it go. You'll feel better, believe me. ;) :D

No "smarting" here. I'm just showing you day by day, little by little, that I am right.

Good times.:D

[tyke1doe]

No "smarting" here. I'm just showing you day by day, little by little, that I am right.

Good times.:D

How by twisting facts? :rolleyes:

I guess you missed that discussion we had about clearly stating policy before engaging in certain activity.

You know, how a drug policy can be an invasion of privacy unless you do it a specific way. How even if you have random drug testing, you have to spell out the policy clearly so as not to infringe on players' rights.

Yeah, of course you forgot that because you're more interested in proving that you're "right" than actually considering the facts of the issue.

But such is the way of internet debaters. ;) :)

[burmafrd]

And your post is the perfect example of what is wrong in so many ways in this country. You are so worried about the players "rights" that your way of thinking insures that they never get caught.
Your way of thinking puts so many obstacles in the way of trying to find out the truth that it never happens.
Your way is that of someone who has lost sight of the goal by becoming fixated on the process.
Its like the so called justice system. It was supposed to be about finding out the truth; now its so bogged down in the process that that goal has been all but lost.

[peplaw06]

You know, how a drug policy can be an invasion of privacy unless you do it a specific way. How even if you have random drug testing, you have to spell out the policy clearly so as not to infringe on players' rights.
Is it really less of an infringement on "players' rights" if it's spelled out in a policy? How adorably naive.

[tyke1doe]

Is it really less of an infringement on "players' rights" if it's spelled out in a policy? How adorably naive.

Uh, it's called consent. You know, if you've agree to a particular policy, then you give up a certain amount of your rights. If you don't like said policy you don't give your consent. :rolleyes:

It happens all the time. You know, uh, you can't take pictures of students at a public school unless you have consent because otherwise you'd be violating his rights.

You know, when a television show blocks out a person's picture, even if he's in a public area because he didn't give his consent.

Similarly, you can't tell a player to piss on the spot or anywhere you so desire if it's not spelled out in policy. Otherwise, you'd be violating his rights.

Come on. You're the lawyer. You should know this. Then again you offered an example of "inadmissible" evidence when we were arguing the legality of proper search procedures. ;) :D

[tyke1doe]

And your post is the perfect example of what is wrong in so many ways in this country. You are so worried about the players "rights" that your way of thinking insures that they never get caught.
Your way of thinking puts so many obstacles in the way of trying to find out the truth that it never happens.
Your way is that of someone who has lost sight of the goal by becoming fixated on the process.
Its like the so called justice system. It was supposed to be about finding out the truth; now its so bogged down in the process that that goal has been all but lost.

You do know why those procedures and obstacles are in place don't you?

It's because we had a frontier justice system in this country which lynched and executed people before they had their right to a trial.

And being black, this type of vigilanteeism was particularly odious in African-American communities, when our rights were disgarded, and we were tried and executed on the spot.

Don't blame me. Blame those who had the same mentality you seem to have.

Let's just remove all the obstacles and find them guilty. Procedures are mere formalities.

Sorry, I just don't see it the same way.

[peplaw06]

Uh, it's called consent. You know, if you've agree to a particular policy, then you give up a certain amount of your rights. If you don't like said policy you don't give your consent. :rolleyes:

It happens all the time. You know, uh, you can't take pictures of students at a public school unless you have consent because otherwise you'd be violating his rights.

You know, when a television show blocks out a person's picture, even if he's in a public area because he didn't give his consent.

Similarly, you can't tell a player to piss on the spot or anywhere you so desire if it's not spelled out in policy. Otherwise, you'd be violating his rights.

Come on. You're the lawyer. You should know this. Then again you offered an example of "inadmissible" evidence when we were arguing the legality of proper search procedures. ;) :D Your analogies need work.

Question: Did each player personally give his consent to the drug policy?

[tyke1doe]

Your analogies need work.

Question: Did each player personally give his consent to the drug policy?

They do when they enter the league. They are made aware of the drug testing policies when they enter the league, as well as other league policies, just like employees of any company are made aware of the company's policies.

Don't like the policy. Don't want to submit to a drug test. Don't work for the company or play in the NFL.

Come on, you know this. You're the lawyer, remember. :D

[peplaw06]

They do when they enter the league. They are made aware of the drug testing policies when they enter the league, as well as other league policies, just like employees of any company are made aware of the company's policies.

Don't like the policy. Don't want to submit to a drug test. Don't work for the company or play in the NFL.

Come on, you know this. You're the lawyer, remember. :D

So it was a "sign this or don't earn millions" type of consent? Gotcha. How is that consent again?

And did each player personally sign off on it before it became the policy?

You may wanna rethink taking those little shots at me. Usually when you do that it's after some simpleton remark by you, where you think you've "got me." Problem is I'm about 18 steps ahead of you. I guess you could say I've been giving you just enough rope to hang yourself.

[tyke1doe]

So it was a "sign this or don't earn millions" type of consent? Gotcha. How is that consent again?

And did each player personally sign off on it before it became the policy?

No, the policy was already established, just like when an employee gets hired by a company which randomly drug tests its employees. You're given your company handbook, you're informed of the policy and if you don't like it, you either move to another department or quit. I'm pretty certain that NFL players receive handbooks or policy guidelines from the league. Most companies disseminate such information to their employees.

Second, regardless what you think about the drug policy, the NFL has one. And it is crafted in such a way that allows the NFL to drug test players. And players give their consent when they take one. Now, I'm sure that the NFL's policy has been properly vetted through its legal department to make sure it doesn't violate a player's rights to privacy (and, yes, players still have certain basic privacy rights even in the NFL). But that's what policy is. It establishes guidelines. If it weren't necessary and weren't interested in being legally compliant, companies wouldn't have them.

Incidentally, with respect to your question above, isn't that what happened in the Ricky Williams situation? Ricky Williams tested positive for marijuana. He didn't want to abide by the NFL's policy because he didn't like it. He left football. He decides to come back. But if he wanted to get back into the NFL, he had to submit himself to the NFL's policy with respect to its drug testing. He is giving his consent by agreeing to play again. If he doesn't want to take the test, he doesn't have to play. That's within his right to do.



You may wanna rethink taking those little shots at me. Usually when you do that it's after some simpleton remark by you, where you think you've "got me." Problem is I'm about 18 steps ahead of you. I guess you could say I've been giving you just enough rope to hang yourself.

Or lasso you. ;)
If you think you're 18 steps ahead of me, I won't interrupt your Internet sense of importance or your fantasies. :)
I'm just surprised that as an attorney you don't understand how these things work. Drug testing, privacy rights and consent aren't foreign issues. I deal with them as an employee and as a reporter I've had to write stories about drug testing policies and the concerns about privacy issues.
Then again, maybe your specialty of law isn't in those areas.

[Verdict]

I think Goodell has done a poor job of being evenhanded in his punishment and appears to be playing favorites even if hes not.

Maybe there is a good rationale for destroying the improper tapes which were in the Patriots possession, but I can't think of one. In most instances evidence of wrongdoing is PRESERVED at all costs, not destroyed. I still can't figure out why Goodell took this approach.

The only thing that comes to mind is that if the evidence were to be made public, that the magnitude of the evidence was so great that its disclosure would adversely impact the integrity of the game to the point the NFL appeared to be like pro wrestling.

[peplaw06]

No, the policy was already established, just like when an employee gets hired by a company which randomly drug tests its employees. You're given your company handbook, you're informed of the policy and if you don't like it, you either move to another department or quit. I'm pretty certain that NFL players receive handbooks or policy guidelines from the league. Most companies disseminate such information to their employees.

Second, regardless what you think about the drug policy, the NFL has one. And it is crafted in such a way that allows the NFL to drug test players. And players give their consent when they take one. Now, I'm sure that the NFL's policy has been properly vetted through its legal department to make sure it doesn't violate a player's rights to privacy (and, yes, players still have certain basic privacy rights even in the NFL). But that's what policy is. It establishes guidelines. If it weren't necessary and weren't interested in being legally compliant, companies wouldn't have them.

Incidentally, with respect to your question above, isn't that what happened in the Ricky Williams situation? Ricky Williams tested positive for marijuana. He didn't want to abide by the NFL's policy because he didn't like it. He left football. He decides to come back. But if he wanted to get back into the NFL, he had to submit himself to the NFL's policy with respect to its drug testing. He is giving his consent by agreeing to play again. If he doesn't want to take the test, he doesn't have to play. That's within his right to do.The NFL is a legalized monopoly. Believing that each and every player is giving their full consent to every policy in the NFL freely and voluntarily is the height of absurdity.




Or lasso you. ;)
If you think you're 18 steps ahead of me, I won't interrupt your Internet sense of importance or your fantasies. :)
I'm just surprised that as an attorney you don't understand how these things work. Drug testing, privacy rights and consent aren't foreign issues. I deal with them as an employee and as a reporter I've had to write stories about drug testing policies and the concerns about privacy issues.
Then again, maybe your specialty of law isn't in those areas.I think it's cute that you think you can teach me anything regarding the law or legal issues when you've been proven wrong time after time after time after time after...

[tyke1doe]

The NFL is a legalized monopoly. Believing that each and every player is giving their full consent to every policy in the NFL freely and voluntarily is the height of absurdity.


But we're talking about the drug testing policy here, counselor. And the NFL DOES administer drug tests. So whether the consent was written or implied with an athlete's agreement to play in the NFL, it is being done.


I think it's cute that you think you can teach me anything regarding the law or legal issues when you've been proven wrong time after time after time after time after...

And I do give your legal expertise some weight, as much as one can not knowing the person with whom he is conversating or his particular background. Remember, this is an anonymous board, and I don't know you from Adam.
But when you engage in an argument with me about legal issues and then offer as an example evidence that would be "inadmissible" in court, I have to question how thoroughly you do know the law.

That's not the type of mistake a lawyer should make. But I do think it's - using your terminology - cute that a lawyer would make such a mistake. Even if he can't admit it. ;)

A reporter? I can see. A lawyer? :laugh2:

[peplaw06]

But we're talking about the drug testing policy here, counselor. And the NFL DOES administer drug tests. So whether the consent was written or implied with an athlete's agreement to play in the NFL, it is being done.The point is, that is not really consent. They must agree to it, or they don't play football. If I don't consent to a search of my car when a police officer pulls me over, they can't prevent me from driving for that.

But when you engage in an argument with me about legal issues and then offer as an example evidence that would be "inadmissible" in court, I have to question how thoroughly you do know the law.

That's not the type of mistake a lawyer should make. But I do think it's - using your terminology - cute that a lawyer would make such a mistake. Even if he can't admit it. ;)
Actually I'll admit I did make a mistake. The mistake is that if your employer searched your personal property without your consent and found stolen company property, it would be admissible. Your employer is not law enforcement, or the state. As such the 4th amendment doesn't apply to them.

So no matter how you cut it, it's not illegal for your employer to search your personal property.

Good luck spinning this one.

[tyke1doe]

The point is, that is not really consent. They must agree to it, or they don't play football. If I don't consent to a search of my car when a police officer pulls me over, they can't prevent me from driving for that.

Didn't I say this :confused: ?


Actually I'll admit I did make a mistake. The mistake is that if your employer searched your personal property without your consent and found stolen company property, it would be admissible. Your employer is not law enforcement, or the state. As such the 4th amendment doesn't apply to them.

Fair enough, you admitted your mistake. That's good enough for me.

But I would offer if your employer found stole company property, the issue of admissibility would be moot wouldn't it? You would merely be fired.


So no matter how you cut it, it's not illegal for your employer to search your personal property.

Good luck spinning this one.

I disagree because your statement suggests that your employer could search your personal effects - wallet, pockets, etc. And I doubt your employer has the right to do that. Now, he could if you fear that you may not have a job if you don't submit to the search. But I would think you would have a pretty good lawsuit if your employer fired you because you didn't allow him to search your person because he suspected you stole something.

[peplaw06]

Didn't I say this :confused: ? Yeah you said that, but you don't get the point. The point is that's not true consent. That's what some would call a contract of adhesion. There is no equal bargaining power on that term. They agree to it or don't play. True consent is voluntary, not forced.



Fair enough, you admitted your mistake. That's good enough for me.I admitted making A mistake. That's not the mistake you thought I made. My mistake only bolsters my point.

But I would offer if your employer found stole company property, the issue of admissibility would be moot wouldn't it? You would merely be fired. No it's not moot. If they pursue criminal charges against you, then the firing may be the least of your troubles.

I disagree because your statement suggests that your employer could search your personal effects - wallet, pockets, etc. And I doubt your employer has the right to do that.I'm sure he has the right to do it through some kind of contract or company policy. He's certainly not prevented from doing it by any laws or the Constitution. Now, he could if you fear that you may not have a job if you don't submit to the search. But I would think you would have a pretty good lawsuit if your employer fired you because you didn't allow him to search your person because he suspected you stole something.I don't think so... What would be your claim?

[tyke1doe]

Yeah you said that, but you don't get the point. The point is that's not true consent. That's what some would call a contract of adhesion. There is no equal bargaining power on that term. They agree to it or don't play. True consent is voluntary, not forced.

Fair enough. I'm using "consent" when that may not be the appropriate term. But the concept is similar, IMO. You have an option to either play or not play. But if that is considered a "contract of adhesion" then that addresses the issue as far as I'm concerned.


I admitted making A mistake. That's not the mistake you thought I made. My mistake only bolsters my point.

The mistake, though, clarifies my perception of your qualifications. You made a mistake which I didn't think a lawyer would make. You clarified that you made that mistake so I'm more open to accepting your opinion.


No it's not moot. If they pursue criminal charges against you, then the firing may be the least of your troubles.

And the courts would accept the fact a company conducted such a search without said search being detailed in company policy as legitimate? :confused:


I'm sure he has the right to do it through some kind of contract or company policy. He's certainly not prevented from doing it by any laws or the Constitution. I don't think so... What would be your claim?

Your first statement goes to my point. You acknowledge he has the right through some kind of contract or company policy. Absent company policy spelling out such a search, do you think a judge/jury is going to rule for the company?

In cases of lawsuits involving employees and employers, company policy plays a large part, does it not, especially if the issue is whether a company adhered to its policies or it didn't? And if it didn't, what is the principle that guides the rights of the employee? The fact that the company didn't adhere to its policy or that the employee has basic certain rights which prevent a company from capricously (spelling?) violating the rights of employees?

Employees still maintain a certain level of Constitutional rights even on the job don't they?

[peplaw06]

And the courts would accept the fact a company conducted such a search without said search being detailed in company policy as legitimate? :confused: Yes, because the company is not a state actor.

It would be like John Doe finding the corpse in the trunk of your car. If he finds it, he can testify to what he found, he can give the Police Probable Cause to search your car, etc. He's not a state actor who can violate your 4th amendment rights against search and seizure.

Your first statement goes to my point. You acknowledge he has the right through some kind of contract or company policy. Absent company policy spelling out such a search, do you think a judge/jury is going to rule for the company? There's a difference between a civil suit and criminal charges. If the company violates a policy from a contract, that is a separate proceeding. If the state pursues criminal charges against you for what your company found, then anything the company found in a search is admissible, because they're not a state actor.

In cases of lawsuits involving employees and employers, company policy plays a large part, does it not, especially if the issue is whether a company adhered to its policies or it didn't? And if it didn't, what is the principle that guides the rights of the employee? The fact that the company didn't adhere to its policy or that the employee has basic certain rights which prevent a company from capricously (spelling?) violating the rights of employees? Like I said, suits between civil parties have a completely different set of rules than a defendant versus the state. If you're talking strictly criminal proceedings, which is really the only forum where illegal searches exist, then a private actor cannot violate the 4th amendment.

Employees still maintain a certain level of Constitutional rights even on the job don't they?Sure they do. The company can't call in the authorities to conduct a search without probable cause.

But anything found by the company during a search is admissible. And if the company provides the cops with PC, then any subsequent searches with warrants would be legal.

[tyke1doe]

Yes, because the company is not a state actor.

It would be like John Doe finding the corpse in the trunk of your car. If he finds it, he can testify to what he found, he can give the Police Probable Cause to search your car, etc. He's not a state actor who can violate your 4th amendment rights against search and seizure.

There's a difference between a civil suit and criminal charges. If the company violates a policy from a contract, that is a separate proceeding. If the state pursues criminal charges against you for what your company found, then anything the company found in a search is admissible, because they're not a state actor.

Like I said, suits between civil parties have a completely different set of rules than a defendant versus the state. If you're talking strictly criminal proceedings, which is really the only forum where illegal searches exist, then a private actor cannot violate the 4th amendment.

Sure they do. The company can't call in the authorities to conduct a search without probable cause.

But anything found by the company during a search is admissible. And if the company provides the cops with PC, then any subsequent searches with warrants would be legal.

Okay.

I guess I was way off and must have been operating under some different assumptions.

But you're the lawyer so I defer to your knowledge.

Despite our previous back-and-forth, I am committed to truth. So I can acknowledge when I might be in error.

Thanks for the explanation. :)