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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

those so called progressives are people like thomas jefferson and ben franklin. yeah those are two real losers there. /sarcasm

burm you seem like a nice guy and that you mean well but so very often you make comments and it is very apparent that you dont know what you are talking about.

i mean exactly how did you come to the conclusion that he 'wins by KO?' did you actually read the old and new policies and come to your own conclusion or did you put a lot of stock in adam nitpicking on deferrments?

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

Apparently, you missed this --

"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."

And this --

"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."

Any violation of the policy -- either engaging in prohibited conduct or not following the rules of the policy -- was subject to discipline.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Apparently, you missed this --

"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."

And this --

"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."

Any violation of the policy -- either engaging in prohibited conduct or not following the rules of the policy -- was subject to discipline.

kk fine i just did a find of discipline. still doesnt mean that failure to report arrests or conduct detrimental warrant suspensions which was the crux of our disagreement.

 

[5Stars]

kk fine i just did a find of discipline. still doesnt mean that failure to report arrests or conduct detrimental warrant suspensions which was the crux of our disagreement.

Now, that is a lie, right there. Fuzzy, you got owned! That was not the crux of the argument!

However, if it makes you feel better to lie to yourself in front of the whole forum...have at it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now, that is a lie, right there. Fuzzy, you got owned! That was not the crux of the argument!

However, if it makes you feel better to lie to yourself in front of the whole forum...have at it.

Do you even know what the points of contention were?

There wre 4 reason listed as cause for suspension. one case of obstruction that was deferred, one case of assault that is still pending, and two arrests that were not reported by Jones one of which was later dismissed. Adam and WG were saying that failure to report an arrest was grounds for a suspension in and of itself. It wasnt. Adam in particular said that 'conduct detrimental' was grounds for discipline in and of itself. It wasnt.

So in essence of the four incidents only one, the deferred case, was viable under the old conduct policy. Like i said before either Goodell is going to have to backtrack on his earlier ruling or he is going to get sued and lose for acting outside the CBA which grants him the authority to act.

 

[5Stars]

Do you even know what the points of contention were?

There wre 4 reason listed as cause for suspension. one case of obstruction that was deferred, one case of assault that is still pending, and two arrests that were not reported by Jones one of which was later dismissed. Adam and WG were saying that failure to report an arrest was grounds for a suspension in and of itself. It wasnt. Adam in particular said that 'conduct detrimental' was grounds for discipline in and of itself. It wasnt.

So in essence of the four incidents only one, the deferred case, was viable under the old conduct policy. Like i said before either Goodell is going to have to backtrack on his earlier ruling or he is going to get sued and lose for acting outside the CBA which grants him the authority to act.

I'll let Adam and WG respond...however, I might add that I do get a kick out of your posts when you are defending the Cowboys against a RedStink troll! You lamblasted that last one!!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll let Adam and WG respond...however, I might add that I do get a kick out of your posts when you are defending the Cowboys against a RedStink troll! You lamblasted that last one!!

why thank you. that guy was such a toolbag. if i were a stinks fan i wouldnt be talking trash to anyone. its like us doing it in the campo era.

adam did respond. he was right that failing to adhere to the counseling program and threats and violence at the NFL workplace are reasons for suspension. read the old policy for yourself he posted it two pages back.

 

[5Stars]

why thank you. that guy was such a toolbag. if i were a stinks fan i wouldnt be talking trash to anyone. its like us doing it in the campo era.

adam did respond. he was right that failing to adhere to the counseling program and threats and violence at the NFL workplace are reasons for suspension. read the old policy for yourself he posted it two pages back.

Naw, you guys hash it out! :laugh2: I guess I got lost somewhere in this whole thing. I though you were saying that no punishment could be made without a conviction?

Just do me a favor, and brush up on your defense against the trolls! The few times that I have seen you do that...it's fierce! And, THAT IS GOOD!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Naw, you guys hash it out! :laugh2: I guess I got lost somewhere in this whole thing. I though you were saying that no punishment could be made without a conviction?

Just do me a favor, and brush up on your defense against the trolls! The few times that I have seen you do that...it's fierce! And, THAT IS GOOD!

Well it is pretty easy when youre dealing with stinks fans.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Do you even know what the points of contention were?

There wre 4 reason listed as cause for suspension. one case of obstruction that was deferred, one case of assault that is still pending, and two arrests that were not reported by Jones one of which was later dismissed. Adam and WG were saying that failure to report an arrest was grounds for a suspension in and of itself. It wasnt. Adam in particular said that 'conduct detrimental' was grounds for discipline in and of itself. It wasnt.

So in essence of the four incidents only one, the deferred case, was viable under the old conduct policy. Like i said before either Goodell is going to have to backtrack on his earlier ruling or he is going to get sued and lose for acting outside the CBA which grants him the authority to act.

You're still wrong, but I'm done. The basis for your argument has been disproved over and over. But for some reason you don't believe that Goodell had the authority to act as he did even before the new policy was revised.

Anyway, you keep thinking what you're thinking. Any further discussion would just be going in circles.

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y164/nbr1diva/Cowboys/wg_tail_chase.gif

 

[5Stars]

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y164/nbr1diva/Cowboys/wg_tail_chase.gif

:drunk: :drunk: :drunk:

 

[ethiostar]

You're still wrong, but I'm done. The basis for your argument has been disproved over and over. But for some reason you don't believe that Goodell had the authority to act as he did even before the new policy was revised.

Anyway, you keep thinking what you're thinking. Any further discussion would just be going in circles.

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y164/nbr1diva/Cowboys/wg_tail_chase.gif

Is it just me or everyone else feeling sleepy?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're still wrong, but I'm done. The basis for your argument has been disproved over and over. But for some reason you don't believe that Goodell had the authority to act as he did even before the new policy was revised.

Anyway, you keep thinking what you're thinking. Any further discussion would just be going in circles.

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y164/nbr1diva/Cowboys/wg_tail_chase.gif

Here is the actual wording of reporting arrests

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.

Here are the only portions of the old league policy that mention resluting in discipline and/or a suspension.

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.

"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."

"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."

What proof? Sorry but WG says so has long since lost credibility.

Those three places are the only portions that talk of discipline and or/suspensions. You cannot infer discipline and/or suspensions when it is not there. So exactly how am i wrong? Im quoting the CBA itself to prove my point.

i mean if you want to talk about a dog chasing its tail look no farther than the way that youa re handling this. You say it is so, i show proof that it is not so, you say that it is so and that i just dont listen, i show even more proof that it is not so and now you say that im a dog chasing its own tail.

It even spells out what happens if you fail to report an arrest and it isnt 'will be subject to discipline.' And youve been parroting over and over again that it does.

Quite franky you provide zero evidence to support your stance.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Apparently, you missed this --

"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."

And this --

"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."

Any violation of the policy -- either engaging in prohibited conduct or not following the rules of the policy -- was subject to discipline.

i actually missed that last blurb there. Exactly what part of the contract are you infering this from because i have yet to see anything that says any violation violation of the policy results in discipline.

 

[DallasEast]

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y164/nbr1diva/Cowboys/wg_tail_chase.gif

 

[AdamJT13]

kk fine i just did a find of discipline. still doesnt mean that failure to report arrests or conduct detrimental warrant suspensions which was the crux of our disagreement.

What part of "shall itself be conduct detrimental to the National Football League and shall be punishable by fine or suspension" do you not understand?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What part of "shall itself be conduct detrimental to the National Football League and shall be punishable by fine or suspension" do you not understand?

Well this is nice im going to have to assume your making an argument that you havent made and definitely wasnt what you were saying in the first place.

Well at least we have established that failure to report is not in and of itself a grounds for a suspension.

The obstruction charge listed was his first arrest and thus wouldnt be subject to the couseling and evaluation portion that is what you are quoting above.

Here is the whole passage since you neglected to add the context your quote was in:

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.

Now the time frame between the obstruction charge and the disorderly conduct charge was 6 months do you have any evidence that after that 6 month time frame Jones was still in the initial evaluation and couseling portion?

 

[AdamJT13]

Well at least we have established that failure to report is not in and of itself a grounds for a suspension.

Yes, it is. It's considered conduct detrimental to the league, which is punishable by a fine and/or suspension.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, it is. It's considered conduct detrimental to the league, which is punishable by a fine and/or suspension.

Sorry adam you are wrong. grammatically speaking that passage means both:

1)Failure to comply with the evaluation period is conduct detrimental.

2)Failure to comply with the evaluation period shall be punishable by a fine and/or suspension.

It does not mean that conduct detrimental is punishable by a fine and/or suspension. The same grammatical structure was used in other portions of the contract here:

Failure to report an incident will constitute conduct detrimental and will be taken into consideration in the final determination of discipline under this policy.

in this case it is saying that it is conduct detrimental and also only used in the final determination.

it is clear that it means that failure in each case is two seperate things not that those two things are the same.

And exactly what proof do you have that it was within the counseling period after 6 months?

 

[AdamJT13]

Sorry adam you are wrong. grammatically speaking that passage means both:

1)Failure to comply with the evaluation period is conduct detrimental.

2)Failure to comply with the evaluation period shall be punishable by a fine and/or suspension.

It does not mean that conduct detrimental is punishable by a fine and/or suspension. The same grammatical structure was used in other portions of the contract here:

You can play with "grammatical structure" however you please, but it doesn't change the facts.

You remind me of a 6-year-old kid whose mother tells him that if he's naughty, he'll get grounded. And she later tells him that playing in the street is naughty. So when he gets grounded for playing in the street, he complains that she didn't tell him he'd get grounded for playing in the street.