CBS Sportsline: Goodell's no lawyer... so why take law in his own hands?

[superpunk]

Plus I think Adam has destroyed the "NOTORIOUS F. U. Z." and disbanded his fanclub of summer, 5stars, BigDakota, GimmeeTheBall, peplaw06, BigDFan5, superpunk, bbgun, and jackrussell.

OuchyBumpkin

He's been on ignore since he put me on his lame, self-important "list".

Things are better that way.

 

[iceberg]

He's been on ignore since he put me on his lame, self-important "list".

Things are better that way.

i just want some recognition of there being a thread like this and i've stayed 100% out of it for the 1st 13 pages. : )

 

[Hostile]

i just want some recognition of there being a thread like this and i've stayed 100% out of it for the 1st 13 pages. : )

12, this is page 13 and now, you're hooked.

 

[iceberg]

12, this is page 13 and now, you're hooked.

nah - i've got 3 websites to rebuild and arguing with a rock isn't as much fun as it used to be.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Boo-Hoo

Some of these guys act like punks and get in trouble yet before would just get a slap on the wrist.

I think it is about time the NFL started playing hardball with these types of antics instead of being hypocrites and letting them get away with slaps on the wrists.

You wouldn't have been saying that in the 1990s had the NFL thrown the book at our players.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

nah - i've got 3 websites to rebuild and arguing with a rock isn't as much fun as it used to be.

and you think I'm stubborn :

 

[iceberg]

and you think I'm stubborn :

hey - there was a time i was "fuzzy" to you in my own stubborness.

wild, huh?

 

[Hostile]

You wouldn't have been saying that in the 1990s had the NFL thrown the book at our players.

I would have.

I applauded Tom Landry for getting rid of Hollywood Henderson.

Perhaps if these measures had been in place Michael Irvin wouldn't have given in to temptations. If he had and got popped it was on him.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I would have.

I applauded Tom Landry for getting rid of Hollywood Henderson.

Perhaps if these measures had been in place Michael Irvin wouldn't have given in to temptations. If he had and got popped it was on him.

holding people accountable, most of all yourself, that's what it's all about people

 

[Bob Sacamano]

hey - there was a time i was "fuzzy" to you in my own stubborness.

wild, huh?

I actually had some fun, arguments w/ Fuzzy just piss me off

 

[iceberg]

I actually had some fun, arguments w/ Fuzzy just piss me off

it's frustrating to us all when people get so 1 sided.

 

[AdamJT13]

You know ive been reviewing your argument from the beginning and your tactics are clear. You start off with this.

Now from the beginning you start out mentioning the clauses for reporting which i might add you were shown to be wrong on and you completely abandoned.

I'm not wrong about it, and I didn't "abandon" it. I've been saying all along that any conduct detrimental is punishable by a fine or suspension, and that includes failure to report (which, in turn, automatically leads to failure to comply). You're the one who got hung up on the language in the failure to comply sentence. We had already established that failure to report constituted conduct detrimental, so there was no need to keep discussing it.

We now know that failure to report is only to be used in the final determination of punishment.

Again, you're hung up on the language of a particular sentence and ignoring the basic facts. The "final determination of punishment" INCLUDES possible suspension for that and that alone. Or, if the crime that wasn't reported also warrants a suspension, both violations would be taken into consideration in the "final determination." You're acting like there is no punishment for failure to report, which obviously isn't true.

I added the above quote in becasue at a later point you accuse me of making up that you said Goodell can arbitrarily pucish players as he wants. Its ac ute bait and switch move though.

No, I said Goodell can levy whatever punishment he wants for Pacman's violations of the policy. It's up to him to determine the length of the punishment -- up to and including a lifetime ban.

You implied that I said the commissioner could simply suspend someone "because he feels like it," even if the player did nothing wrong. That obviously isn't true, and I've never said anything like that.

Now i want to note that at this point you are saying that he has universal powers versus your current stance of 'all conduct dtrimental.'

Again, you're missing the entire point. I never said Goodell had "universal powers" to punish whomever he wants for no reason. I said it was up to Goodell to decide what the punishment is for violating the policy (ie., conduct detrimental).

This is what you initially said was the part of CBA that stated that conduct detrimental is punishable

That's not what I said. I was merely providing one example of where the policy talked about conduct detrimental being punishable by suspension.

It was out of context and when it must of been readily obvious that this in and of itself didnt prove what you had hoped, you once more regress to yet another shelter with this:

You apparently conceded every other point and now are seeking refuge here.

I wasn't "seeking refuge" from anything. I've spent this entire thread saying the same things over and over and over and showing you all of the different ways that you're wrong. You just keep bouncing from being wrong about one thing to being wrong about another thing. I don't know how else to get you to realize what's so plain and obvious.

The CBA only says conduct detrimental in the player contract. Elsewhere it is only conduct detrimental to the players club.

Wrong again. This is from the old CBA --

ARTICLE XI

COMMISSIONER DISCIPLINE

Section 1. League Discipline: Notwithstanding anything stated in Article IX (Non‑Injury Grievance):

(a) All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for conduct on the playing field other than as described in subsection (b) below, or involving action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football, will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within twenty (20) days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player’s approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.



And this is from the new CBA --


ARTICLE XI

COMMISSIONER DISCIPLINE

Section 1. League Discipline: Notwithstanding anything stated in Article IX (Non-Injury Grievance): (a) All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for conduct on the playing field other than as described in Subsection (b) below, or involving action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football, will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within twenty (20) days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player’s approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.

HERE is a copy of the NFl players contract. Unfortunately the date of the contract draft is December 2006. Pcaman signed his contract in 2004. Do you have one from 2004 or are you trying to say that this one is the same as the old one?

I haven't compared them to see if they're *exactly* the same, but they both say essentially the same thing, and they both include conduct detrimental. Here's the wording before the new CBA --

15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

If it is this contract the commisioner only has authority to punish for conduct detrimental after granting the player a hearing.

Jones never got a hearing before the suspension.

He most certainly did. And he went to a strip club in New York the night before meeting with the commissioner. Pretty smart, huh?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey Im man enough to admit when i am wrong. Indication of the language in the player contract sooner would have saved quite a bit of time.

i saw that the complaint filed on behalf of Jones cited the conduct policy as the portion invoked to suspend Jones and concentrated on that. i was not aware of the portion in the player contract. The contract specified was from December of 2006 and i do find it odd that Jones lawyers would be that obtuse but seeing that classes begin again for me tomorrow between that and the store i am not going to have nearly as much time to post.

Anyway you guys have fun.

 

[cowboyed]

Morons supporting morons. Its NOTICEABLE that none of these articles have ANY quotes at all from LAWYERS saying that Pacman had a case. Interesting, isn't it? And THIS idiot was one of the morons that whined about coming down hard on Pacman and company from day one. He is not a lawyer, or even someone with any real intelligence- just an agenda of some weird kind.

Being a true and tried lawyer is a nice vocational touch but the commissioner doesn't need to be one. With the mega million salary implications, impact on teams, wrongful punishment and discharge issues you can bet Goodell and the NFL itself have attorneys on staff or retainage.

How freaking stupid and naive can a writer get. Talk about making hay from a single blade of grass...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not wrong about it, and I didn't "abandon" it. I've been saying all along that any conduct detrimental is punishable by a fine or suspension, and that includes failure to report (which, in turn, automatically leads to failure to comply). You're the one who got hung up on the language in the failure to comply sentence. We had already established that failure to report constituted conduct detrimental, so there was no need to keep discussing it.

I got hung up on the sentence because when I was saying it doesnt say conduct detrimental = punishment, you quoted that sentence and acted like it did. I twas readily apparent you later went to NFLPA.com and did a ctrl+f to find the player contract clause but initially you were trying to pass it off as the sentence you quoted. There is a reason i fixated on it: you said it.

Again, you're hung up on the language of a particular sentence and ignoring the basic facts. The "final determination of punishment" INCLUDES possible suspension for that and that alone. Or, if the crime that wasn't reported also warrants a suspension, both violations would be taken into consideration in the "final determination." You're acting like there is no punishment for failure to report, which obviously isn't true.

Due to the player contract clause there is because it defines it as conduct detrimental. Thats not a basic fact; that is a clause in the players contract that you finally found. 'Used in the the final determination' does not mean 'will cause.' It means that it will be considered in the determination of severity and type of punishment which is the final part. Apparently you think all phrasings indicate causation.

No, I said Goodell can levy whatever punishment he wants for Pacman's violations of the policy. It's up to him to determine the length of the punishment -- up to and including a lifetime ban.

Yes you did. You said "He can use his discretion to punish Pacman however he wants." Lets do a little more remedial english.

dis·cre·tion(d-skrshn)
n.
Freedom to act or judge on one's own

So youre either saying he can judge on his own to punish or you have no idea what the words you are saying mean. Which is it?

You implied that I said the commissioner could simply suspend someone "because he feels like it," even if the player did nothing wrong. That obviously isn't true, and I've never said anything like that.

See above.

Again, you're missing the entire point. I never said Goodell had "universal powers" to punish whomever he wants for no reason. I said it was up to Goodell to decide what the punishment is for violating the policy (ie., conduct detrimental).

See above x2

That's not what I said. I was merely providing one example of where the policy talked about conduct detrimental being punishable by suspension.

And the sentence didnt say that in and of itself. Remember:

success shall itself be an action and shall be fun

does it follow that all actions are fun?

due process shall itself be a right and ahall be self evident.

does it follow that all rights are self evident?

failure to go to counseling shall itself be conduct detrimental and shall be punishable by suspension.

does it follow that all conduct detrimental is punishable by suspension?

So either you knew of the player contract clause and were not mentioning it to prolong the argument unecessarily or you thought the sentence in and of itself indicated causation.

I wasn't "seeking refuge" from anything. I've spent this entire thread saying the same things over and over and over and showing you all of the different ways that you're wrong. You just keep bouncing from being wrong about one thing to being wrong about another thing. I don't know how else to get you to realize what's so plain and obvious.

What youve been saying from the beginning is that the old conduct policy gave the authority which is wrong. The players contract does. if you look at the conduct policy in a vacuum; i am correct.

Wrong again. This is from the old CBA --

ARTICLE XI

COMMISSIONER DISCIPLINE

Section 1. League Discipline: Notwithstanding anything stated in Article IX (Non‑Injury Grievance):

(a) All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for conduct on the playing field other than as described in subsection (b) below, or involving action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football, will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within twenty (20) days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player’s approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.

And this is from the new CBA --


ARTICLE XI

COMMISSIONER DISCIPLINE

Section 1. League Discipline: Notwithstanding anything stated in Article IX (Non-Injury Grievance): (a) All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for conduct on the playing field other than as described in Subsection (b) below, or involving action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football, will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within twenty (20) days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player’s approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.

I haven't compared them to see if they're *exactly* the same, but they both say essentially the same thing, and they both include conduct detrimental. Here's the wording before the new CBA --

15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

i dont know why yor quoting the new CBA. It gives him the authority to do whatever he wants arbitrarily in terms of discipline.

As for the portion from the from the old CBA i read that and discarded it because it is talking about how hearings will be handled not what will cause them. Gain with your failure to grasp what denotes causation. Because there is such thing as a hearing concerning conduct detrimental does not mean that all all types of conduct detrimental will necessarily cause said hearing.

For example, if there was a hearing in court about parking it does not follow that all types of parking will cause said type of hearing.

The last portion that you quoted was from the player contract

He most certainly did. And he went to a strip club in New York the night before meeting with the commissioner. Pretty smart, huh?

Im aware of that now.

I am happy though that you finally did find the player contract to give evidence to your position.

 

[DallasEast]

FuzzyLumpkins, at some point, even Troy Aikman understood when it was way past time to retire and walk away.

 

[JPM]

He's been on ignore since he put me on his lame, self-important "list".

Things are better that way.

ignore is a wonderful feature !

 

[Hostile]

Hey Im man enough to admit when i am wrong. Indication of the language in the player contract sooner would have saved quite a bit of time.

i saw that the complaint filed on behalf of Jones cited the conduct policy as the portion invoked to suspend Jones and concentrated on that. i was not aware of the portion in the player contract. The contract specified was from December of 2006 and i do find it odd that Jones lawyers would be that obtuse but seeing that classes begin again for me tomorrow between that and the store i am not going to have nearly as much time to post.

Anyway you guys have fun.

You have some detractors Fuzz, but I'm not one of them. Though I didn't share your stance on this topic I felt you did a good job of defending your take on it and when a poster can admit when they are wrong it just raises my respect level. Besides, I appreciate intelligence and it is clear you have that.

 

[AdamJT13]

I got hung up on the sentence because when I was saying it doesnt say conduct detrimental = punishment, you quoted that sentence and acted like it did. I twas readily apparent you later went to NFLPA.com and did a ctrl+f to find the player contract clause but initially you were trying to pass it off as the sentence you quoted.

It's amazing how completely wrong you still can be even after admitting you were wrong about everything else. Like I said earlier, I quoted that sentence because it was one example of conduct detrimental being punishable that you already had read and apparently didn't comprehend the first time because you got hung up on the sentence structure.

Due to the player contract clause there is because it defines it as conduct detrimental. Thats not a basic fact; that is a clause in the players contract that you finally found.

I didn't "finally find" the player contract. The commissioner's right to suspend players is a basic fact mentioned in the CBA, as I've been saying since the very beginning of the thread.

'Used in the the final determination' does not mean 'will cause.' It means that it will be considered in the determination of severity and type of punishment which is the final part. Apparently you think all phrasings indicate causation.

Again, you're hung up on the language instead of realizing the basic facts. The phrasing doesn't need to "indicate causation," because the fact already exists. It's not first being revealed in that sentence, it's merely being mentioned.

Yes you did. You said "He can use his discretion to punish Pacman however he wants." Lets do a little more remedial english.

dis·cre·tion(d-skrshn)
n.
Freedom to act or judge on one's own

So youre either saying he can judge on his own to punish or you have no idea what the words you are saying mean. Which is it?

Here's exactly what I said -- "I haven't said anything about the new policy. Jones violated the old policy, which gives Goodell the right to suspend him. He did. Just because Tagliabue might never have suspended anyone for similar offenses (if there ever was another case like Pacman's, which I doubt) doesn't mean Goodell can't suspend him. He can use his discretion to punish Pacman however he wants. And Pacman can appeal, which he did."

If you have any reading comprehension abilities whatsoever, you should realize exactly what I said -- because Pacman violated the policy, Goodell had the right to use his discretion when deciding what the punishment should be.

There's no possible way you can construe that to mean that Goodell can suspend players for no reason.

And the sentence didnt say that in and of itself.

Like I said, it doesn't have to because it's already an established fact.

So either you knew of the player contract clause and were not mentioning it to prolong the argument unecessarily or you thought the sentence in and of itself indicated causation.

I've been mentioning the CBA since the beginning of the thread.

What youve been saying from the beginning is that the old conduct policy gave the authority which is wrong. The players contract does.

Again, I've been saying that the CBA gives him the right since the beginning. My first post in the thread (post #2 in the thread) said, "I guess Clay Travis has never heard of the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement, let alone read it." My second post said, "In other words, the commissioner doesn't need the judicial system to tell him when it's OK to punish someone. The CBA does that for him."

And if you want to get technical, the commissioner actually is GIVEN the authority to suspend players for conduct detrimental in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws. The CBA is the players' recognition of that authority. And the conduct policy explains things that would prompt him to exercise that authority.

if you look at the conduct policy in a vacuum; i am correct.

Oh, brother.

i dont know why yor quoting the new CBA.

I quoted the old CBA and the new CBA to show you that the right has existed for years and still does.

 

[DallasEast]

See? This is what I hate about boxing. Adam has beaten Fuzzy into a bloody pulp for 10 rounds, but does the ref ever want to call off the fight? Noooooo...



j/k Fuzzy.