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

[5Stars]

are you familiar with how effective dates work?

I am! If she gives me some, some...and I don't get convicted of any charge...it's an effective date!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pacman was guilty of the charge of Aug 6. That is why they told him if he stayed out of trouble they would drop it. Point is he did it. The biting part- there is plenty of evidence of THAT. So he committed acts- there is NO dispute of that, no matter what comes out of the busted legal system.

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.

he will probably be convicted for violation of said probation but as of the time of the ruling he had not.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't confuse me with those who have a thirst for blood when it comes to Pacman. Pacman doesn't pay my bills and neither does Goodell. I'm stating the points that you're incorrect in understanding. Goodell is not contractually bound to wait for a conviction. Neither was Tags. Tags PREFERRED to wait, Goodell does not. That is the difference and that's what you don't seem to understand. The discretion given to Goodell was in the "OLD" policy and upgraded in the "NEW" policy.

Actually, we haven't been over anything as I rarely engage you in discussion. You're getting me confused with summer and some of the other folks you have on you F.U.Z list or whatever the heck it is.

See my post above about the number of incidents he was involved in which caused an embarassment to the league.

Anyone can file suit and I have no doubt that should Goodell choose not to amend the suspension that the NFL's counsel and Pacman's lawyers are fully prepared for that. The question Pacman has to ask himself, does he want to take on the NFL and the CBA, because it would be a lose-lose situation in my mind.

i just want to get this straight. You think that this suspension was handed down under the new policy?

 

[5Stars]

Now I know why Fuzzy's location is in "Nowhereland"!!

 

[AdamJT13]

ive read the old policy where it specifically talks about violations of the policy in terms of convictions and failures to report arrests. the new policy is where goodell gets to be arbitrary. you can keep on thinking that the new policy applies but it doesnt.

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.

 

[AdamJT13]

normally in a situation like this jones pleads nolo contendre and the judge suspends the decision on the outcome of his probation.

And for that -- under the old policy as well as the new policy -- he could be suspended.

Are you sure you read the old policy, even just a little?

 

[peplaw06]

The violation of the policy is based on him not reporting the arrests. Not the circumstances behind the arrests nor the disposition of them.

And contrary to popular opinion, but that wording was in the original conduct policy as well.

I understand that... I think Goodell is perfectly within his powers to act under the CBA. I have no issue with that part of it. Old Policy or new, he is authorized to act, IMO, and the fact that they are employees only give the players less power in these situations. He may be authorized, but it doesn't make it wise to do so, and it doesn't mean the policy is a good one.

I'm merely saying on a deeper level, the commish is flirting with a line which if crossed, authorized or not, could cause irreparable damage. False accusations are leveled everyday; it's pretty common unfortunately, especially in this day and age, considering you can be crucified in the court of public opinion before you even set foot in a courtroom.

When you start acting on allegations, whether authorized or not, you start down a slippery slope, whether you think that argument's weak or not. I realize the Commish has yet to act, or even give the impression that league action is imminent in the Vick case. But the pressure he is facing from the public over this could push him to act before he has all the information.

I'm NOT defending Vick, Pacman, or Henry AT ALL. I'm not claiming anyone in here is a zealot in their wish to see guys punished. All I'm saying is that if you start down that road, the potential for a bigger mistake increases.

Like the Duke case. Those players and that coach may never be completely "de-stigmatized," if you will. Is that right? You could argue that they shouldn't even be in the situation in the first place, but everyone's done something they're not so proud of. Think about what you would want if it were your job/reputation on the line.

Sometimes you can go back and fix things... you can grant players an extra year of eligibility, you can reinstate an employee and issue an apology. But when you hand out unprecedented suspensions, the damage has been done. No amount of damage control after the fact can make up for the loss of reputation. Then you place a permanent black eye on a person.

 

[AdamJT13]

Like the Duke case. Those players and that coach may never be completely "de-stigmatized," if you will. Is that right?

That's what happens in a society in which people can accuse others of crimes or improper behavior.

The alternative is a society in which people can't.

Which would you prefer?

 

[5Stars]

ISometimes you can go back and fix things... you can grant players an extra year of eligibility, you can reinstate an employee and issue an apology. But when you hand out unprecedented suspensions, the damage has been done. No amount of damage control after the fact can make up for the loss of reputation. Then you place a permanent black eye on a person.

Life is not fair, peplaw...you know that already. I would rather have a black eye on a person rather than let all these nuts run loose without any dicipline! I don't want to have to worry about going to some bar and having some damn NFL thug get mad and start trouble, causing harm to me or people around me.

If other players can stay out of trouble and abide by the NFL rules, why can't some of these others?

Thsi is not a LAW issue, this is dicipline, plain and simple! Was it too harsh? Maybe? But then again, if fools like him are allowed to do things in public, conviction or not, and cause havoc in society...then it is wrong!

There are laws, and then there is commen sense...right is right, wrong is worng, period.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's what happens in a society in which people can accuse others of crimes or improper behavior.

The alternative is a society in which people can't.

Which would you prefer?

The difference is not accusing someone of something but rahter passing judgement and doling out punishment. Normally that is termed vigilante justice.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And for that -- under the old policy as well as the new policy -- he could be suspended.

Are you sure you read the old policy, even just a little?

im going to have to call you on this ive read both. Both list bullet pointsof violations of the conduct policy. the primary difference is the last bullet in the new one citing 'conduct detrimental' to the league. Now from the old policy i distinctly remember reading convictions, failure to report arrests and failure to abide by the counseling program for previous violations of the conduct policy. i dont seem to remember the part about 'because the commisioner feels like it.' in fact i remember that was the whole point of the new policy.

Now i have been looking like the dickens for a copy of the old conduct policy to show this but youre a resourceful guy im sure you could find it as well. if i missed something then id be more than happy to admit that im wrong.

 

[AdamJT13]

i dont seem to remember the part about 'because the commisioner feels like it.'

And who, exactly, claimed that the commissioner could suspend someone because he feels like it?

If you're going to keep arguing, at least try to follow the argument.

 

[hank2k]

Life is not fair, peplaw...you know that already. I would rather have a black eye on a person rather than let all these nuts run loose without any dicipline! I don't want to have to worry about going to some bar and having some damn NFL thug get mad and start trouble, causing harm to me or people around me.

If other players can stay out of trouble and abide by the NFL rules, why can't some of these others?

Thsi is not a LAW issue, this is dicipline, plain and simple! Was it too harsh? Maybe? But then again, if fools like him are allowed to do things in public, conviction or not, and cause havoc in society...then it is wrong!

There are laws, and then there is commen sense...right is right, wrong is worng, period.

Who the hell are you to tell people what is and what isnt proper behavior ?

Are guys at a strip club behaving improperly? Say bye to 9/10 of the NFL.

Is having a few drinks and getting a little loud with your friends?

I guess only if you call them a posse right?

Whats wrong with waiting to see if a guy has actually broken the law before we suspend him?

I guess everyone the police arrest are guilty , right?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And who, exactly, claimed that the commissioner could suspend someone because he feels like it?

If you're going to keep arguing, at least try to follow the argument.

i am following the argument. youre being petulant.

there are clearly defined lists of what used to and what now violates the conduct policy. what provision specifically under the old policy was violated?

i cant yet find an old copy of the conduct policy but im still looking.

 

[2much2soon]

Does anyone really believe that Goodell is going to run mad and ruin the league by blowing out any guy that looks at him the wrong way?
If you believe guys like Pacman and Vick are good for the league's image, as they stand right now, more power to you...

 

[5Stars]

Who the hell are you to tell people what is and what isnt proper behavior ?

Are guys at a strip club behaving improperly? Say bye to 9/10 of the NFL.

Is having a few drinks and getting a little loud with your friends?

I guess only if you call them a posse right?

Whats wrong with waiting to see if a guy has actually broken the law before we suspend him?

I guess everyone the police arrest are guilty , right?

Exactely! Now you are getting it!

I go to some strip clubs on occasion, however, by luck, I have never been somewhere where these freaking thugs come in and "make it rain" with $80,000 dollars! Then slam a women in the head for trying to pick up some of that cash, and then get kicked out, then come back shooting!

How about you?

 

[Angus]

i dont see how you come to that conclusion. did you even read the article?

He is fully cognizant of the powers that these changes grant to the commisioner. His issue is the commisioner using power which he doesnt deny the CBA grants him to pass down judgement before due process takes place.

He talks of scenarios where a player is accused of something the commisioner acts and then the player is later exonerated. He doesnt deny that the commisioner can do that but rather when this happens it is going to be a mess.

Im still not sure whther federal labor law allows this but I have a feeling that were probably going to find out very soon.

A good lawyer will recognize the difference between justice in a courtroom and expediency in a commercial setting. Pacman is not entitled to justice at the hands of the commissioner. If he ever gets justice, he'll get it from a judge sending him to jail. He is not entitled to anything from the NFL except the money he has coming, if any. He may receive beneficial consideration from the league, but he is not entitled to it.

"Not guilty until proven guilty" and "no punishment until convicted" are only applicable under the law to legal crimes, not to social or business relationships. Goodell has not punished Jones; he has restricted the player's access to the NFL game in order to restrain him from further harming the reputation of the organization. If Jones thinks that's punishment, he just doesn't get it. Neither, apparently, do you.

Justice is a matter of criminal law; suspension is a matter of employee education.

 

[AdamJT13]

there are clearly defined lists of what used to and what now violates the conduct policy. what provision specifically under the old policy was violated?

Failing to notify the team and club after being arrested (which also means he failed to undergo the mandatory clinical evaluation after being arrested). That's two counts of conduct detrimental to the league, both of which subject him to discipline from the commissioner.

The other two charges could fall under the rules regarding lesser pleas and the like. I don't know the specifics of those cases. But under your "normal situation" (pleading "nolo contendre") for one of the cases, that also would be considered a violation. The other charge appears to have been deferred, which also is considered a violation of the policy.

 

[5Stars]

A good lawyer will recognize the difference between justice in a courtroom and expediency in a commercial setting. Pacman is not entitled to justice at the hands of the commissioner. If he ever gets justice, he'll get it from a judge sending him to jail. He is not entitled to anything from the NFL except the money he has coming, if any. He may receive beneficial consideration from the league, but he is not entitled to it.

"Not guilty until proven guilty" and "no punishment until convicted" are only applicable under the law to legal crimes, not to social or business relationships. Goodell has not punished Jones; he has restricted the player's access to the NFL game in order to restrain him from further harming the reputation of the organization. If Jones thinks that's punishment, he just doesn't get it. Neither, apparently, do you.

Justice is a matter of criminal law; suspension is a matter of employee education.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A good lawyer will recognize the difference between justice in a courtroom and expediency in a commercial setting. Pacman is not entitled to justice at the hands of the commissioner. If he ever gets justice, he'll get it from a judge sending him to jail. He is not entitled to anything from the NFL except the money he has coming, if any. He may receive beneficial consideration from the league, but he is not entitled to it.

"Not guilty until proven guilty" and "no punishment until convicted" are only applicable under the law to legal crimes, not to social or business relationships. Goodell has not punished Jones; he has restricted the player's access to the NFL game in order to restrain him from further harming the reputation of the organization. If Jones thinks that's punishment, he just doesn't get it. Neither, apparently, do you.

Justice is a matter of criminal law; suspension is a matter of employee education.

Weve been over this before. Ther clearly defined causes under the NFL conduct policy both new and old that would violate it. The new policy gives the commisioner authority to punish despite a conviction and pretty much at his discretion. Now while i think its reprehensible that he thinks that he can dole out justice more efficiently that the US legal system, i am not arguing along those lines. The players were stupid and its their bed to sleep in.

What i am talking about is that the old conduct policy demands a conviction or certain other violations such as failure to report an arrest to dole out punishment. This was in repsonse to James Lofton being suspended at the end of the 1996 season on a rape charge but was then later exonerated. This suspension is under the old policy and lists as cause 4 incidents, two of which have yet to be resolved in court.