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

[hank2k]

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?

What were you doing in those types of places anyway ?

If you were in the NFL that might constitute conduct detrimental to the leagues image for setting foot in there in the first place. Youre a public figure...image to maintain...Who says so? Well ,the commish...he's got all the authority to make that deternination, right?
Appeal?...back to the commish...good luck...see ya at the car wash...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

conduct detrimental to the league was just added in adam.

i see the nolo contendre' but do you know the specifics of the case for you to be able to speak with certaintly?

the other case is still pending. a continuance is not the same and again do you know the specifics of the case to be able to make the distinction?

i mean you talk as if youre coming from a position of authority but it seems you are just as blind to the specifics as i am.

 

[5Stars]

What were you doing in those types of places anyway ?

If you were in the NFL that might constitute conduct detrimental to the leagues image for setting foot in there in the first place. Youre a public figure...image to maintain...Who says so? Well ,the commish...he's got all the authority to make that deternination, right?
Appeal?...back to the commish...good luck...see ya at the car wash...

That is right...!

If others can stay out of trouble and go cool places, how come some of these suckers do? When they should have already knew...? You mess up?

Guess what?

 

[AdamJT13]

conduct detrimental to the league was just added in adam.

No, it's been in there AT LEAST since May 25, 2000.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, it's been in there AT LEAST since May 25, 2000.

well i have read extensively in the last hour that is was a clause that had just been added in.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i mean really adam it sounds like you have a copy of the thing right on your desk or something if youre giving dates of copies or something or that youre looking at it in some form. Why cant you just list the violations of the conduct policy as they are on the May 2000 edition that you are looking at?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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

vigilantinism is people taking the law into their own hands, which usually means they're breaking the law by hanging suspected criminals before they have a right to defend themselves in a court of law

I don't think Goodell is setting about hanging anyone here

 

[AdamJT13]

well i have read extensively in the last hour that is was a clause that had just been added in.

And exactly where have you been reading such an incorrect statement?

 

[AdamJT13]

i mean really adam it sounds like you have a copy of the thing right on your desk or something if youre giving dates of copies or something or that youre looking at it in some form.

You are correct, sir.

Why cant you just list the violations of the conduct policy as they are on the May 2000 edition that you are looking at?

I had no reason to. It's not my fault you claimed to be familiar with the old conduct policy but don't have a copy of it, don't know where to find it and don't remember what it said.

 

[AdamJT13]

i see the nolo contendre' but do you know the specifics of the case for you to be able to speak with certaintly?

the other case is still pending. a continuance is not the same and again do you know the specifics of the case to be able to make the distinction?

i mean you talk as if youre coming from a position of authority but it seems you are just as blind to the specifics as i am.

I know what the conduct policy says (and what the old one said), and that's all I've been talking about. I don't know the specific legal status of Pacman's two open cases, and I haven't said anything about them -- other than in response to your "normal situation" scenario, when I stated the normal result of that situation.

 

[peplaw06]

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?

I would prefer a society where people can accuse others of crimes or improper behavior only when they are telling the truth. You obviously can't dictate that. We clearly don't want a society where you can never level accusations... too reminiscent of communism.

We have to have safeguards for whatever system we choose to use, so society doesn't abuse their "power." Since we have chosen the first, there is a system in place called Due Process.... (I know, I know, not that again).

So what would I prefer? Ideally I would prefer a system where you can accuse others, but there are safeguards against abuse.... whaddya know? that's just what we have. Now we just have to figure out how to use it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I would prefer a society where people can accuse others of crimes or improper behavior only when they are telling the truth. You obviously can't dictate that. We clearly don't want a society where you can never level accusations... to reminiscent of communism.

We have to have safeguards for whatever system we choose to use, so society doesn't abuse their "power." Since we have chosen the first, there is a system in place called Due Process.... (I know, I know, not that again).

So what would I prefer? I deally I would prefer a system where you can accuse others, but there are safeguards against abuse.... whaddya know? that's just what we have. Now we just have to figure out how to use it.

there are already safeguards, it's called perjury and defammation of character laws

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And exactly where have you been reading such an incorrect statement?

You are correct, sir.

I had no reason to. It's not my fault you claimed to be familiar with the old conduct policy but don't have a copy of it, don't know where to find it and don't remember what it said.

I know what the conduct policy says (and what the old one said), and that's all I've been talking about. I don't know the specific legal status of Pacman's two open cases, and I haven't said anything about them -- other than in response to your "normal situation" scenario, when I stated the normal result of that situation.

Ive pictured you as many things but childish is not one of them. So you have a copy of the old agreement and what it says but you wont tell us what that is? Hmm really one has to wonder about that. I mean you could easily put me in my place by simply documenting it here but you choose not to. Interesting indeed.

Anyway here are the links that talk about what Im saying I got this info from and the quotes:

Quote from a DePaul Law Professor commmenting on the new conduct policy

Under the previous violent crime policy created and administered by former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, punishment was triggered only by a conviction or its equivalent, including a plea of no contest or a plea to a lesser charge. That's obviously not the case under the new policy, but the same concerns surrounding disciplinary action before a conviction still exist. League officials seem to have forgotten when they suspended James Lofton for the last game of the season in 1986 because of a rape charge, which then backfired when Lofton was acquitted during the off-season.

The Cincinatti papers weigh in

Though the old policy prohibited violent and criminal behavior off the field, it didn't provide for league discipline in advance of a conviction. And no player had ever been suspended for more than four games under the old policy due to conduct away from football.

Under the new policy, the commissioner can suspend players almost entirely at his discretion for off-field incidents, even when their legal matters are pending and they haven't been convicted of crimes.

The NY Times weighs in saying that these sweeping powers are new.

Moments after Jones and Henry became the public faces of Goodell’s law-and-order campaign, the N.F.L. announced a stricter personal conduct policy. It calls for increased education and support programs for players and gives Goodell sweeping powers to issue lengthy suspensions.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram ahs the following to say

New measures

The NFL on Tuesday announced changes to the league's personal conduct policy for players. Disciplinary modifications include:

Conduct harmful to the integrity of the league, even if not criminal in nature, will be subject to discipline.

How about the Sporting News?

The strengthened standards apply to all NFL employees: players, coaches, officials, owners, front-office and league personnel. And Goodell emphasized in the new policy that those standards will be considerably tighter than outside the league.

"It is not enough to simply avoid being found guilty of a crime," the new policy says. "Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values upon which the league is based, and is lawful.

This is the new clause in the CBA concerning personal conduct. Note that this is new and not in the previous form.

The standard of socially responsible conduct for NFL employees will be higher. Club and league employees will be held to a higher standard than players. Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL will be subject to discipline, even if not criminal in nature.

So if i have this right adam this means that all of these guys are wrong have never been corrected and you could prove it but you just choose not to do it?

Like I said before adam its not just childish. its downright pathetic.

 

[peplaw06]

there are already safeguards, it's called perjury and defammation of character laws

So instead of depending on the process to see itself through and simply defending yourself in a court of law, you put the onus on the accused to pursue his own pre-emptive lawsuit? Brilliant. The more lawsuits we can have backlogging our court system, the better. Much more efficient to create more lawsuits that to use the process already in place.

Of course you really don't know what perjury means... lying under oath... and the fact that it is very rarely prosecuted, or that a defendant or civilian can't sue someone civilly for perjury. And you don't know that truth is an absolute defense for defamation of character... meaning you have to prove at the very least that the accusations are in fact false.... Which would require a court of law to determine that fact in the first place. So there we are back to square one.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So instead of depending on the process to see itself through and simply defending yourself in a court of law, you put the onus on the accused to pursue his own pre-emptive lawsuit? Brilliant. The more lawsuits we can have backlogging our court system, the better. Much more efficient to create more lawsuits that to use the process already in place.

Of course you really don't know what perjury means... lying under oath... and the fact that it is very rarely prosecuted, or that a defendant or civilian can't sue someone civilly for perjury. And you don't know that truth is an absolute defense for defamation of character... meaning you have to prove at the very least that the accusations are in fact false.... Which would require a court of law to determine that fact in the first place. So there we are back to square one.

He normally doesnt know what hes talking about. This entire idea that Goodell knows better than the American legal system which is the heart of his stance is simply foolish.

We have the freedom to speak our minds so if we feel that someone broke the law or did something wrong it is very good to point the finger. To take justice into our own hand and mete out punishment outside of the legal framework that exists is pure folly. The legal system that we enjoy is far from perfect but it is the best system in the world to determine guilt.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

HERE is a link to a request Jones' lawyers sent to the league.

i would copy and paste but it would just be a mess. Its actually an interesting read as it lists all of the arrests that involve NFL players since 2000. I never knew that Michael Pittman was such a bad bad man. lol

 

[sacase]

I think Goddel is going to have a tough time justifying the year long suspension. That list is looooong

 

[AdamJT13]

So if i have this right adam this means that all of these guys are wrong have never been corrected and you could prove it but you just choose not to do it?

If you had posted those earlier, I would have corrected them earlier.

Under the previous violent crime policy created and administered by former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, punishment was triggered only by a conviction or its equivalent, including a plea of no contest or a plea to a lesser charge.

That's not correct. Failure to comply with the rules of the policy -- such as reporting an arrest -- was grounds for punishment under the old policy.

Though the old policy prohibited violent and criminal behavior off the field, it didn't provide for league discipline in advance of a conviction.

Also incorrect, for the reasons above and the obvious reason that discipline was posible even without a conviction (such as with a plea to a lesser offense, a plea of no contest, acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, etc.).

Under the new policy, the commissioner can suspend players almost entirely at his discretion for off-field incidents, even when their legal matters are pending and they haven't been convicted of crimes.

As he could under the old policy, as well.

Moments after Jones and Henry became the public faces of Goodell’s law-and-order campaign, the N.F.L. announced a stricter personal conduct policy. It calls for increased education and support programs for players and gives Goodell sweeping powers to issue lengthy suspensions.

The old policy gave the commissioner the power to issue "a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League." It doesn't get more lenghty than banishment.

Conduct harmful to the integrity of the league, even if not criminal in nature, will be subject to discipline.

That's not a modification at all. The old policy also prohibited "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League" and "conduct detrimental to the National Football League." Failure to notify, which is not criminal in nature, made a player subject to discipline.

Also, one part of the old policy stated that anyone "who commits or threatens violent acts against coworkers, regardless of whether an arrest is made or criminal charges are brought, shall be subject to evaluation, counseling and discipline."

This is the new clause in the CBA concerning personal conduct. Note that this is new and not in the previous form.

Quote:
The standard of socially responsible conduct for NFL employees will be higher. Club and league employees will be held to a higher standard than players. Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL will be subject to discipline, even if not criminal in nature.

That's not new. The new policy merely reiterates that fact and expounds upon it.


And since you obviously can't find it on your own -- or don't know it when you see it -- here's exactly what the OLD conduct policy stated (and has stated since at least May 23, 2000) --

-------------------------------------------------------

General Policy

Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the League depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator. The League is committed to promoting and encouraging lawful conduct and to providing a safe and professional workplace for its employees.

Persons Covered by Policy

The following persons ("Covered Persons") shall be considered subject to this Policy: (i) all players under contract; (ii) all full-time employees of the National Football League, its Member Clubs and related entities; (iii) all rookie players once they are selected in the NFL College Draft; and (iv) all undrafted rookie players, unsigned veterans and other prospective employees once they commence negotiations with a Club concerning employment.

Prohibited Conduct

It will be considered conduct detrimental for Covered Persons to engage in (or to aid, abet or conspire to engage in or to incite) violent and/or criminal activity. Examples of such Prohibited Conduct include, without limitation: any crime involving the use or threat of physical violence to a person or persons; the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; possession or distribution of a weapon in violation of state or federal law; involvement in "hate crimes" or crimes of domestic violence; theft, larceny or other property crimes; sex offenses; racketeering; money laundering; obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; fraud; and violent or threatening conduct. Additionally, Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL.

Persons Charged With Criminal Activity

Any Covered Person arrested for or charged with conduct prohibited by this policy will be required to undergo an immediate, mandatory clinical evaluation and, if directed, appropriate counseling. Such evaluation and counseling must be performed under the direction and supervision of the NFL Vice President of Player and Employee Development. Failure to cooperate with evaluation and counseling (including being arrested for or charged with additional criminal activity during the evaluation and counseling period) shall itself be conduct detrimental to the National Football League and shall be punishable by fine or suspension at the discretion of the Commissioner.

Persons Convicted of Criminal Activity

Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nob contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner. Such discipline may include a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League. Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a second criminal violation will be suspended without pay or banished for a period of time to be determined by the Commissioner.

Persons Engaged in Violent Activity in the Workplace

Every employee is entitled to a safe and professional workplace free of criminal behavior, violence and threats against personal safety. Criminal conduct in the workplace or against other employees is prohibited. Any Covered Person who commits or threatens violent acts against coworkers, regardless of whether an arrest is made or criminal charges are brought, shall be subject to evaluation, counseling and discipline, including termination of employment.

Duty to Report Prohibited Conduct

To ensure the effective administration of the policy, the League must be advised when a Covered Person engages in Prohibited Conduct. The obligation to report an arrest or criminal charge extends to both the person involved and to the Club or League entity for which he or she works.

Persons subject to this policy who are arrested or charged with Prohibited Conduct must report that incident to their Clubs or to NFL Security at (800) NFL-1099. Failure to report an incident will constitute conduct detrimental and will be taken into consideration in the final determination of discipline under this policy.

Appeal Rights

Any person disciplined under this policy shall have a right of appeal, including a hearing, before the Commissioner or his designee. Except for the enforcement of discipline, no other requirements set forth in the policy will be stayed pending the completion of the appeal.

-------------------------------------------------------


And because you probably haven't actually read the new policy, either, here is where you'll find a copy of that --

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/Personal%20Conduct Policy.pdf

If that link doesn't work, go here and click on the part that says "PDF here." --

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/?p=9619&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more9619

You'll also notice that the old policy is posted there, as well.

 

[burmafrd]

And as usual AdamJT13 wins by KO. Poor Fuzzy never had a chance.
Have to laugh at anyone claiming that the US legal system is working worth a damn. Frankly, there is more justice in the way Goodell is doing it then in just about any court room in America. Technicalities- the way thugs get off when guilty. I always thought that the moron who claimed "Better 1000 guilty be let go then 1 innocent jailed" was one of the most evil so called claims ever made. What about all the innocent victims of those 1000 let go? and the victims that 1000 would have later on? But that is the way it is with those types of so called "progressives": they do not care about the victims- they only care about the criminals.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

General Policy

Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the League depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator. The League is committed to promoting and encouraging lawful conduct and to providing a safe and professional workplace for its employees.

Persons Covered by Policy

The following persons ("Covered Persons") shall be considered subject to this Policy: (i) all players under contract; (ii) all full-time employees of the National Football League, its Member Clubs and related entities; (iii) all rookie players once they are selected in the NFL College Draft; and (iv) all undrafted rookie players, unsigned veterans and other prospective employees once they commence negotiations with a Club concerning employment.

Prohibited Conduct

It will be considered conduct detrimental for Covered Persons to engage in (or to aid, abet or conspire to engage in or to incite) violent and/or criminal activity. Examples of such Prohibited Conduct include, without limitation: any crime involving the use or threat of physical violence to a person or persons; the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; possession or distribution of a weapon in violation of state or federal law; involvement in "hate crimes" or crimes of domestic violence; theft, larceny or other property crimes; sex offenses; racketeering; money laundering; obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; fraud; and violent or threatening conduct. Additionally, Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL.

Persons Charged With Criminal Activity

Any Covered Person arrested for or charged with conduct prohibited by this policy will be required to undergo an immediate, mandatory clinical evaluation and, if directed, appropriate counseling. Such evaluation and counseling must be performed under the direction and supervision of the NFL Vice President of Player and Employee Development. Failure to cooperate with evaluation and counseling (including being arrested for or charged with additional criminal activity during the evaluation and counseling period) shall itself be conduct detrimental to the National Football League and shall be punishable by fine or suspension at the discretion of the Commissioner.

Persons Convicted of Criminal Activity

Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nob contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner. Such discipline may include a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League. Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a second criminal violation will be suspended without pay or banished for a period of time to be determined by the Commissioner.

Persons Engaged in Violent Activity in the Workplace

Every employee is entitled to a safe and professional workplace free of criminal behavior, violence and threats against personal safety. Criminal conduct in the workplace or against other employees is prohibited. Any Covered Person who commits or threatens violent acts against coworkers, regardless of whether an arrest is made or criminal charges are brought, shall be subject to evaluation, counseling and discipline, including termination of employment.

Duty to Report Prohibited Conduct

To ensure the effective administration of the policy, the League must be advised when a Covered Person engages in Prohibited Conduct. The obligation to report an arrest or criminal charge extends to both the person involved and to the Club or League entity for which he or she works.

Persons subject to this policy who are arrested or charged with Prohibited Conduct must report that incident to their Clubs or to NFL Security at (800) NFL-1099. Failure to report an incident will constitute conduct detrimental and will be taken into consideration in the final determination of discipline under this policy.

Appeal Rights

Any person disciplined under this policy shall have a right of appeal, including a hearing, before the Commissioner or his designee. Except for the enforcement of discipline, no other requirements set forth in the policy will be stayed pending the completion of the appeal.

-------------------------------------------------------


And because you probably haven't actually read the new policy, either, here is where you'll find a copy of that --

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/Personal%20Conduct Policy.pdf

If that link doesn't work, go here and click on the part that says "PDF here." --

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/?p=9619&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more9619

You'll also notice that the old policy is posted there, as well.

thanks a lot for posting that adam it is appreciated.

the only portion of the old policy that actually allowed for a suspension or fine was a conviction. from what you just listed above the only portion that actually says an action will result in discipline is the persons convicted. it doesnt say it in the prohibited conduct and it doesnt say it in the reporting portion.

now it does say "Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL" but of all those prohibited actions it says nothing about punishment for commiting such actions. you cannot infer a punishment from that statement that is not there.

it said that failure to report would be taken into consideration oin the final decision but it says nothing about a failure to report being in and of itself cause for discipline. in essence "Failure to report an incident will constitute conduct detrimental and will be taken into consideration in the final determination of discipline under this policy." means that when you get convicted we will punish you more if you dont report it. it does not mean we will render punishment in and of itself.

this is exactly why in the new policy he repeatedly inserted 'will be subject to discipline.' here are a couple of examples.

persons who engage in criminal conduct will be subject to discipline.

persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.

it then goes onto the bullet points on specific acts that also are 'subject to discipline' including the infamous conduct detrimental.

in the old policy there is only one act that is 'subject to discipline'

Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nob contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner. Such discipline may include a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League. Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a second criminal violation will be suspended without pay or banished for a period of time to be determined by the Commissioner

so its basically you get convicted or cop a plea and you get disciplined and not for anything else. so please quit saying that failure to report an arrest is cause for suspension under the old policy. its not and neither is conduct detrimental. both are mentioned but neither is said to result in discipline.