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

[burmafrd]

There is a certain enjoyment in watching someone get pulped. A guilty pleasure. But after a while it gets boring.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Oh, brother.

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

Im sorry but that makes little to no sense Adam. I was specirfically saying that it was saying nowhere that all conduct detrimental was punishable by the commisioner but rhather only specific cases. You kept on quoting me those specific cases and telling me that those specific cases meant that ALL conduct detrimental.

If you from the very beginning knew about the player contract you simply could have quoted clause 15 of it and be done and completely prevent the need for 100 pages of argument.

But thats not what you did Adam you quoted each and every part other than clause 15 of the player contract and kept on saying that those indicated universal causation.

what you are saying that you did is quote something that needed something else to prove it over and over again rather than what was neededt o prove it that would have stood alone. sorry that makes little sense. Which leads me to

You are absolutely horrible about citing your sources. you referenced player contracts no linkage. you referenced and quoted the old conduct policy which is to be found HERE with again no linkage and then taunted me because you found it and then said I had to 'beg' to get you to show it. Heck ive even see other people quote pages from STATS, LLC.

Now I realize that this message board and the rules for providing links are not nearly as ominbus as an academic publication, and you are very careful to not directly quote what you are reading ion the web, But I realize why academics demand it even without direct quotation. Its academically dishonest. But you love to build your 'mystique' on this board and are not interested in anything other than that. It allows you to be smug and condescending without having to give credit where you are getting the information from.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is a certain enjoyment in watching someone get pulped. A guilty pleasure. But after a while it gets boring.

No offense but i hardly got pulped. Had any one preson would have quoted clause 15 of the players contract as the source of the commish power from the get go it would have been a first round TKO. This would be more like going 15 rounds and losing by decision.

And as for you calling me moron etc earlier in the thread.

Those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

I appreciate that Hostile. I think people see my love for argumentation and twist that into a refusal to admit it when Im wrong. While I fight like a bulldog when I think that Im right there is absolutlely no shame in coming to the right conclusion when new evidence presents itself.

 

[Concord]

OK so let me get this straight.

Goodell had no right to suspend Pacman because he hasn't been convicted of anything?

And this is true?

What does the CBA say about this?

 

[AdamJT13]

Im sorry but that makes little to no sense Adam. I was specirfically saying that it was saying nowhere that all conduct detrimental was punishable by the commisioner but rhather only specific cases. You kept on quoting me those specific cases and telling me that those specific cases meant that ALL conduct detrimental.

If you from the very beginning knew about the player contract you simply could have quoted clause 15 of it and be done and completely prevent the need for 100 pages of argument.

It's funny how you've progressively gone from arguing about the issues to arguing only about me. You were entirely wrong then and you're still entirely wrong now.

I should have realized earlier in the thread that you were completely ignorant about NFL rules and the CBA and not just nitpicking about the conduct policy. With all of your posturing about being a legal expert, you'd think that when I repeatedly mentioned the CBA and you responded to those posts, you'd actually read the CBA to see what I was talking about. Especially when you claimed to be "quoting the CBA itself."

But thats not what you did Adam you quoted each and every part other than clause 15 of the player contract and kept on saying that those indicated universal causation.

Wrong. I said over and over and over that the policy didn't NEED to indicate causation because it already was a known fact.

Which leads me to

You are absolutely horrible about citing your sources. you referenced player contracts no linkage. you referenced and quoted the old conduct policy which is to be found HERE with again no linkage and then taunted me because you found it and then said I had to 'beg' to get you to show it.

I guess I missed the rule that says it's necessary to provide links for everything. But then, you didn't provide a link to that rule, did you?

And I found more than a dozen instances in this thread alone where YOU stated something that needed attribution (some of it false information, of course) but failed to cite a source, let alone provide a link. And that's not including the times when you repeated the same things again without attribution or links. You sure spew a lot of vitriol over something you don't even do yourself.

Heck ive even see other people quote pages from STATS, LLC.

Funny how that happens when STATS has all kinds of information available to the public and provides all of the stats for other Web sites such as ESPN.com.

Other people know about ESPN.com, too? I'm shocked.

But you love to build your 'mystique' on this board and are not interested in anything other than that.

I could care less about any "mystique." All I care about is my privacy.

It allows you to be smug and condescending without having to give credit where you are getting the information from.

I've always stated exactly where I get my statistics from. For other information such as salary cap and contract information, I'll never reveal my source in order to keep my source. But feel free to insult me for providing that information. I really could care less what you think.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's funny how you've progressively gone from arguing about the issues to arguing only about me. You were entirely wrong then and you're still entirely wrong now.

I should have realized earlier in the thread that you were completely ignorant about NFL rules and the CBA and not just nitpicking about the conduct policy. With all of your posturing about being a legal expert, you'd think that when I repeatedly mentioned the CBA and you responded to those posts, you'd actually read the CBA to see what I was talking about. Especially when you claimed to be "quoting the CBA itself."

Wrong. I said over and over and over that the policy didn't NEED to indicate causation because it already was a known fact.

I guess I missed the rule that says it's necessary to provide links for everything. But then, you didn't provide a link to that rule, did you?

And I found more than a dozen instances in this thread alone where YOU stated something that needed attribution (some of it false information, of course) but failed to cite a source, let alone provide a link. And that's not including the times when you repeated the same things again without attribution or links. You sure spew a lot of vitriol over something you don't even do yourself.

Funny how that happens when STATS has all kinds of information available to the public and provides all of the stats for other Web sites such as ESPN.com.

Other people know about ESPN.com, too? I'm shocked.

I could care less about any "mystique." All I care about is my privacy.

I've always stated exactly where I get my statistics from. For other information such as salary cap and contract information, I'll never reveal my source in order to keep my source. But feel free to insult me for providing that information. I really could care less what you think.

i have never said that i was a legal expert. I have never even intimated it. if you must know i have a degree in mechanical engineering and have no desire to practice lawwhatsoever.

And it is not general kbnowledge of the CBA. The only thing that proves your point is one line from section 15 of the players contract as of december of 2006 which i believe is on page 4 appendix C. It is not mentioned anywhere else. you kept citing everything but that as proof. that is why I am saying you were not aware of it from the get go. Youre not that arrogant to think that a single line form a 200+ page document constitutes general knowledge but you certainly willing to attempt to patronize me about it. Maybe you are that arrogant. Again a simple indiction of the player contract from the very beginning and not a series of red herrings for days would have made sens had you been aware of that line.

As a matter of point, those links i provided were not incorrect. The old conduct policy did not grant the commisioner powers you claimed. It was the players contract that did.

You did copy and paste the old conduct policy and didnt provide a link whcih i soon found later on the web and that led me to analyze how you go about disseminating information in general. You consistently condescend while it is obvious you are referencing something that you know very well that most people are not aware of. Ive seen you doing it for a long long time now.

And the ESPN site does not provide for a customizable search of STATS database. You have to pay the premium for STATS to do that which im assuming you did.

 

[AdamJT13]

i have never said that i was a legal expert. I have never even intimated it.

Did you or did you not say things such as, "it would be a federal issue," "Do you know what the Taft-Hartley Act or the landrum-Griffin Act are?", "are you familiar with how effective dates work?" and "you clearly do not know how law works. normally in a situation like this jones pleads nolo contendre and the judge suspends the decision on the outcome of his probation."

When you say things like that, it gives the impression that you know "how the law works" and "what the Taft-Hartley Act (and) the Landrum-Griffin Act are."

And it is not general kbnowledge of the CBA.

The fact that the commissioner has the power to suspend players for conduct detrimental to the league is common knowledge. At least to those who pay attention to such things.

As a matter of point, those links i provided were not incorrect.

That's not what I said. I said some of the many things you said WITHOUT attribution or links was incorrect.

You consistently condescend while it is obvious you are referencing something that you know very well that most people are not aware of.

You weren't aware of the CBA? Then why did you claim to be quoting from it much earlier in this thread?

And the ESPN site does not provide for a customizable search of STATS database.

What does that have to do with anything?

You have to pay the premium for STATS to do that which im assuming you did.

No, I did not.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Did you or did you not say things such as, "it would be a federal issue," "Do you know what the Taft-Hartley Act or the landrum-Griffin Act are?", "are you familiar with how effective dates work?" and "you clearly do not know how law works. normally in a situation like this jones pleads nolo contendre and the judge suspends the decision on the outcome of his probation."

When you say things like that, it gives the impression that you know "how the law works" and "what the Taft-Hartley Act (and) the Landrum-Griffin Act are."

The fact that the commissioner has the power to suspend players for conduct detrimental to the league is common knowledge. At least to those who pay attention to such things.

That's not what I said. I said some of the many things you said WITHOUT attribution or links was incorrect.

You weren't aware of the CBA? Then why did you claim to be quoting from it much earlier in this thread?

What does that have to do with anything?

No, I did not.

Just because I know a bit of history, have familiarity with how a contracts effective dates work and understand that anything dealing with interstate commerce such as the NFL being federal jurisdiction does not make me a law expert. i was talking to Burm and i was mentioning things he would need to understand in order to begin to form a credible opinion. I try to be well rounded in my knowledge but that is a far cry from claiming to be an expert in a thing.

I never claimed expertise in anything.

And you may say that a single clause in the 15th section of a contract from December 2006 that Jones may or may not have signed 3 years ago is a far cry from common knowledge. i think a safer gauge would be the 6 major news sources that i quoted. Or are you saying that your ex post facto opinion is more indicative than the NYT, FWST and the Sporting News.

This agin really is a red herring. I could really care less what the common opinion is. i was searching for a specific cause and after watching you flounder for over 100 posts trying to show cause you finally managed to do it. If you were aware of the simple and rock solid sentence in section 15 of the players contract why did you wait oever 100 posts on everything that didnt show cause to mention it?

You say you did t becasue it was common knowledge but im sorry that is so much BS.

If anything that contract was revised in December of 2006 so we know for a fact that that incarnation of the contract is NOT what Jones signed. There is also no record of the 2004 contract over at NFLPA.com as far as i can tell so you cannot prove that in 2004 Jones signed a contract that gave the commisioner that authority.

Really until you can show a players contract from 2004 you still have not shown cause.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Just because I know a bit of history, have familiarity with how a contracts effective dates work and understand that anything dealing with interstate commerce such as the NFL being federal jurisdiction does not make me a law expert. i was talking to Burm and i was mentioning things he would need to understand in order to begin to form a credible opinion. I try to be well rounded in my knowledge but that is a far cry from claiming to be an expert in a thing.

I never claimed expertise in anything.

And you may say that a single clause in the 15th section of a contract from December 2006 that Jones may or may not have signed 3 years ago is a far cry from common knowledge. i think a safer gauge would be the 6 major news sources that i quoted. Or are you saying that your ex post facto opinion is more indicative than the NYT, FWST and the Sporting News.

This agin really is a red herring. I could really care less what the common opinion is. i was searching for a specific cause and after watching you flounder for over 100 posts trying to show cause you finally managed to do it. If you were aware of the simple and rock solid sentence in section 15 of the players contract why did you wait oever 100 posts on everything that didnt show cause to mention it?

You say you did t becasue it was common knowledge but im sorry that is so much BS.

If anything that contract was revised in December of 2006 so we know for a fact that that incarnation of the contract is NOT what Jones signed. There is also no record of the 2004 contract over at NFLPA.com as far as i can tell so you cannot prove that in 2004 Jones signed a contract that gave the commisioner that authority.

Really until you can show a players contract from 2004 you still have not shown cause.

A wise ol' cowboy once told me "when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging".

 

[AdamJT13]

Just because I know a bit of history, have familiarity with how a contracts effective dates work and understand that anything dealing with interstate commerce such as the NFL being federal jurisdiction does not make me a law expert. i was talking to Burm and i was mentioning things he would need to understand in order to begin to form a credible opinion. I try to be well rounded in my knowledge but that is a far cry from claiming to be an expert in a thing.

Fine, you were posturing as someone who knew what he was talking about regarding certain laws and contracts. It's obvious now that you didn't know much about the CBA, the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws or the conduct policy. I vastly overestimated your knowledge.

And you may say that a single clause in the 15th section of a contract from December 2006 that Jones may or may not have signed 3 years ago is a far cry from common knowledge.

Again, it's not just a single clause. It's also mentioned in the CBA, the conduct policy and the Constitution and Bylaws. Numerous articles over the years have mentioned it, as well.

i think a safer gauge would be the 6 major news sources that i quoted. Or are you saying that your ex post facto opinion is more indicative than the NYT, FWST and the Sporting News.

http://www.cowboysplus.com/classic/webspecials/michaelirvin/071100irvin.html

"In April 1996, Mr. Irvin was discovered in an Irving hotel room with two self-employed models, teammate Alfredo Roberts and cocaine. He pleaded no contest to cocaine possession and completed a four-year probation. The NFL suspended him for the first five games of the season for conduct detrimental to the league."

http://www.cowboysplus.com/classic/webspecials/michaelirvin/121299irvin.html

"While it's unclear whether Irvin will be a first ballot selection, a survey of more than a third of the Hall of Fame's voters indicates that his statistics and Super Bowl rings will overshadow his on-field theatrics and off-the-field troubles, which included a five-game suspension to start the 1996 season for conduct detrimental to the NFL."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E7DE1539F931A15751C1A963958260

"Cox received an additional $7,500 fine by Commissioner PAUL TAGLIABUE for conduct detrimental to the league after spitting toward the Buffalo fans as he walked off the field."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E6D6133EF932A25753C1A960958260

"Commissioner PAUL TAGLIABUE also threatened Cox with a suspension ''of at least one game'' for any future misconduct detrimental to the league."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E3D7143EF932A15754C0A962958260

"suspended Hapes indefinitely for 'acts detrimental to the N.F.L. and pro football.' "

http://www.mywire.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/11/26/655321?extID=10037&oliID=229

From USA Today on Nov. 26, 2004 --

"NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has sweeping disciplinary powers. In cases involving conduct detrimental to the league, he can suspend players without pay for a period he deems appropriate and also fine them up to $500,000.

Players can appeal penalties to the league and through the NFL Players Association and, in some cases, can play pending the appeal. Tagliabue's authority is rooted in the NFL's constitution and bylaws and the collective bargaining agreement with the NFLPA."


Do you need more? There are plenty, including references to coaches and owners facing discipline for conduct detrimental to the league.

i was searching for a specific cause and after watching you flounder for over 100 posts trying to show cause you finally managed to do it.

I never tried to show cause -- I specifically said it didn't need to be shown.

If anything that contract was revised in December of 2006 so we know for a fact that that incarnation of the contract is NOT what Jones signed. There is also no record of the 2004 contract over at NFLPA.com as far as i can tell so you cannot prove that in 2004 Jones signed a contract that gave the commisioner that authority.

Really until you can show a players contract from 2004 you still have not shown cause.

You're just hilarious.

Here's the cached NFLPA page with the CBA on it from 2004 (notice the words "As Amended January 8, 2002") --
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603054317/www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Complete

"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."

 

[DallasEast]

That's it. I'm outta this thread.

Adam, you won this argument days ago.

Fuzzy, just stay down on the mat, man. You're beaten. Live to fight another day.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A wise ol' cowboy once told me "when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging".

Wow i have all kinds of people that have all sorts of wise proverbs for me.

And what kind of hole can there be? this is a discussion nothing more.

All i know is that Jones lawyers are very very good. Look no farther than his rapsheet and how many convictions he has as of late. He was in Las Vegas, NV a state that akes lawlessness very very seriously. He pucnhed a stripper in front of several winesses and then left amidst a scuffle with security. Two people he was with came back and shot said security. this is Nevada where they nail you to the wall and yet not one single charge has bee brought against Jones. Do you realize how superb they would have to be with his priors in order to pull that off?

They state that Goodell did not act within his authority and they are aware of what Jones player contract stipulates better than anyone here and they have just as much awareness of the CBA as any of us.

Fact is the only thing that could give Goodell the authority to act as he did would be if Jones did sign a contract that had the same verbage as the December 2006 contract.

The only other location that may stipulate it might be the NFL constitution but if they used that to bypass a labor agreement that would opena whole new can of worms.

Now i am more than fully willing to admit that it is possible that the same language was in both forms of the contract, but it is not a given. But the fact of the matter is that all of you people that come in here an comment are all progoodell and so lets just say i take what you say with a grain of salt.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fine, you were posturing as someone who knew what he was talking about regarding certain laws and contracts. It's obvious now that you didn't know much about the CBA, the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws or the conduct policy. I vastly overestimated your knowledge.

Again, it's not just a single clause. It's also mentioned in the CBA, the conduct policy and the Constitution and Bylaws. Numerous articles over the years have mentioned it, as well.

http://www.cowboysplus.com/classic/webspecials/michaelirvin/071100irvin.html

"In April 1996, Mr. Irvin was discovered in an Irving hotel room with two self-employed models, teammate Alfredo Roberts and cocaine. He pleaded no contest to cocaine possession and completed a four-year probation. The NFL suspended him for the first five games of the season for conduct detrimental to the league."

http://www.cowboysplus.com/classic/webspecials/michaelirvin/121299irvin.html

"While it's unclear whether Irvin will be a first ballot selection, a survey of more than a third of the Hall of Fame's voters indicates that his statistics and Super Bowl rings will overshadow his on-field theatrics and off-the-field troubles, which included a five-game suspension to start the 1996 season for conduct detrimental to the NFL."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E7DE1539F931A15751C1A963958260

"Cox received an additional $7,500 fine by Commissioner PAUL TAGLIABUE for conduct detrimental to the league after spitting toward the Buffalo fans as he walked off the field."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E6D6133EF932A25753C1A960958260

"Commissioner PAUL TAGLIABUE also threatened Cox with a suspension ''of at least one game'' for any future misconduct detrimental to the league."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E3D7143EF932A15754C0A962958260

"suspended Hapes indefinitely for 'acts detrimental to the N.F.L. and pro football.' "

http://www.mywire.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/11/26/655321?extID=10037&oliID=229

From USA Today on Nov. 26, 2004 --

"NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has sweeping disciplinary powers. In cases involving conduct detrimental to the league, he can suspend players without pay for a period he deems appropriate and also fine them up to $500,000.

Players can appeal penalties to the league and through the NFL Players Association and, in some cases, can play pending the appeal. Tagliabue's authority is rooted in the NFL's constitution and bylaws and the collective bargaining agreement with the NFLPA."


Do you need more? There are plenty, including references to coaches and owners facing discipline for conduct detrimental to the league.

I never tried to show cause -- I specifically said it didn't need to be shown.

You're just hilarious.

Here's the cached NFLPA page with the CBA on it from 2004 (notice the words "As Amended January 8, 2002") --
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603054317/www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Complete

"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."

Fine now that is compelling. It is apparent that Jones signed a contract witht that verbage in it. Fair enough. Was wondering what was taking you so long.

And i do know what im talking about in regards to certain laws and contracts. That should be readily apparent when you finally realized thaat the old conduct policy wasnt sufficient. Plus outside of the contract in the CBA, the CBA proper doesnt give that authority. I have no idea about the by laws i havent bothered to look but if the league invoked that to supersede a labor agreement it would be interesting to see the fall out from that.

That doesnt mean i had any more experience with the CBA other than brief glance throughs from when the new conduct policy was announced.

Anyway i concede well played Adam.

 

[cowboyed]

Fuzzy the only thing that is compelling if not neurotic, is your need to have the obvious proven to you in a myriad of ways as if you were a football intellectual paragon.

You can rationalize your downright resistance to fact as love of argumentation but seriously who wants to put up with that...

I would understand you adhering to proving wild speculative notions but your unreasonable demands of proof positive of established NFL commissioner powers is coming from Saturn, third ring out.

 

[burmafrd]

Fuzzy is only the most stubborn one. OGT and others have quieted down but they all seem to think that its all about Labor Law or federal law or convictions in court. Its not and for some reason they cannot get that. The Commish can do what he has done and that is that. Why in the world they could not see that is a mystery to me.

 

[kTXe]

Fuzzy is only the most stubborn one. OGT and others have quieted down but they all seem to think that its all about Labor Law or federal law or convictions in court. Its not and for some reason they cannot get that. The Commish can do what he has done and that is that. Why in the world they could not see that is a mystery to me.

And people like you think that Goodell is right suspend people on a whim - with the kind of consistency that you would expect to see if he placed a bunch of different penalties on a giant wheel, spinning it to find the punishment of choice. Now you tell me...which is worse?

 

[burmafrd]

On a whim? Are you really that dense?

 

[WoodysGirl]

http://img.***BLOCKED***/albums/v628/cowboyszone/thread_stuff/Image8.jpg

 

[deadrody]

I guess Clay Travis has never heard of the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement, let alone read it.

Kinda surprised to see this from Adam, but whatever. Just because there is a "conduct detrimental" clause in the CBA does not give Goodell the singular role of making up what constitutes "detrimental conduct" in a vacuum. It has to be collectively bargained, and be consistent with past practice.

All Pacman's lawyers have to do is drag, say, 5 other players that were charged with similar infractions on the stand, then question Goodell about why those players did X and got no punishment, but Pacman does X and he is banned for a full season.

Case over.

The NFL's conduct policy doesn't require someone to be found guilty of a crime -- or even to be charged with one -- to be punished. Some conduct is prohibited despite not being illegal. Other actions that aren't a crime can get you punished by the NFL. For example, no player will ever be convicted in a court of law of failing to tell his employer that he was charged with a crime, but that's a violation of the NFL's conduct policy and is subject to punishment by the commissioner. 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.

Again, the key is not IF he can punish a player, but to what extent, and that has to be governed by past practice. I would also quibble over Irvin's suspension in 1996. It involved drugs, which would mean 4 games all by itself. The 5th game was really the additional "detrimental conduct" penalty.

Regardless, it will certainly be interesting to see how it all turns out. The only reason the NFLPA is appealing on Pacman's behalf is because if they didn't, they were completely open to charges that they were not representing one of their members fairly, as is ALSO required by federal labor laws. The way it is SUPPOSED to work is when management and the union decide that a change is needed, that they bargain over it and each side gets something in the CBA. That's why it took so long to get steroid testing in baseball, because despite the fact that the MLBPA agreed that it was important, you don't just give away something to the other side.