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

[DBoys]

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.

Good example. You have a sentence that absolutely refutes his argument so he starts trying to discredit and exploit the meaning. That mentality is why our legal system is such a joke and lawyers are looked down on

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

Change the facts? unless you an attorney working for the league office and are privy to information that you are not sharing then I could care less.

And i have been very analytic in all this and comparing me to a child is absurd. The fact that you are throwing out insults now bespeaks more of the actions of a child.

the strutcure of the sentence is:

<noun> is <noun> and will result in <noun>.

If i were to say:

running is exercise beneficial and result in you seeing the coutryside.

It does not follow that exercise benefical will result in you seeing the coutryside.

It may but then again it may not mean you see the countryside. The bottomline is that you cannot be sure and thus you cannot simply infer it.

Furthermore your contention that is true that the commisioner can simply say something is conduct detrimental arbitrarily and then suspend a player it makes the entire changing of the policy unecessary. Why would Goodell claim that he needed more power and then the media report that he has sweeping new powers if he already had it?

If you read the new policy and compare it to the verbage in the old it should be doubly important. They specifically add in the phrase that you contend is inferred from the old one, .

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

NHow why did they add that in Adam? For fun?

Its obvious you didnt know or didnt understand the verbage in the old policy concerning reporting arrests. It is clear that you didnt understand how the failure to adhere to counseling applied. I had to tell you about it.

You remind me of a kid that is a lot better than the other kids at math when he has a calculator and the other students dont. But take away the calculator or give the other kids a calculator and the kid isnt worth a flip.

 

[AdamJT13]

Good example. You have a sentence that absolutely refutes his argument so he starts trying to discredit and exploit the meaning. That mentality is why our legal system is such a joke and lawyers are looked down on

Exactly. If the NFL tells players that "conduct detrimental" to the league is punishable by a fine and/or suspension, and it also tells players that certain actions constitute "conduct detrimental", it shouldn't have to tell players that those same actions are punishable by a fine and/or suspension. That should be obvious by the fact that they're considered "conduct detrimental."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good example. You have a sentence that absolutely refutes his argument so he starts trying to discredit and exploit the meaning. That mentality is why our legal system is such a joke and lawyers are looked down on

he didnt even give the whole sentence in context. whats a joke is you dont understand how the word 'and' works. Last time i checked it didnt denote causation. That would be the word 'thus.'

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Exactly. If the NFL tells players that "conduct detrimental" to the league is punishable by a fine and/or suspension, and it also tells players that certain actions constitute "conduct detrimental", it shouldn't have to tell players that those same actions are punishable by a fine and/or suspension. That should be obvious by the fact that they're considered "conduct detrimental."

it doesnt ever say that conduct detrimental is punishable by anything.

the new policy does though.

strange how that works, them changing the policy to put in verbage that does exactly what you say is 'obvious' in the old one.

 

[AdamJT13]

Change the facts? unless you an attorney working for the league office and are privy to information that you are not sharing then I could care less.

And i have been very analytic in all this and comparing me to a child is absurd. The fact that you are throwing out insults now bespeaks more of the actions of a child.

the strutcure of the sentence is:

<noun> is <noun> and will result in <noun>.

If i were to say:

running is exercise beneficial and result in you seeing the coutryside.

It does not follow that exercise benefical will result in you seeing the coutryside.

It may but then again it may not mean you see the countryside. The bottomline is that you cannot be sure and thus you cannot simply infer it.

That so-called example doesn't apply to this situation at all.

Here's a much better example -- A circle is round. This plate is a circle. The plate, therefore, MUST be round.

Your example is more like saying, "The plate is blue and round. It does not follow that anything blue is round." Of course not!

Furthermore your contention that is true that the commisioner can simply say something is conduct detrimental arbitrarily and then suspend a player it makes the entire changing of the policy unecessary. Why would Goodell claim that he needed more power and then the media report that he has sweeping new powers if he already had it?

Because the media are mostly idiots.

If you read the new policy and compare it to the verbage in the old it should be doubly important. They specifically add in the phrase that you contend is inferred from the old one, .


Quote:
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


NHow why did they add that in Adam? For fun?

Because some players are idiots, too.

Its obvious you didnt know or didnt understand the verbage in the old policy concerning reporting arrests. It is clear that you didnt understand how the failure to adhere to counseling applied. I had to tell you about it.

What are you talking about? I knew about it long before you even read it. You had to beg me to tell you what the policy said.

You remind me of a kid that is a lot better than the other kids at math when he has a calculator and the other students dont. But take away the calculator or give the other kids a calculator and the kid isnt worth a flip.

Again, your example doesn't apply at all. It's more like I don't need the calculator anymore, while you finally got a calculator and don't understand how to use it.

 

[AdamJT13]

it doesnt ever say that conduct detrimental is punishable by anything.

the new policy does though.

strange how that works, them changing the policy to put in verbage that does exactly what you say is 'obvious' in the old one.

Like I said, too many players were idiots and couldn't put 1+1 together to realize that because conduct detrimental could result in a fine and/or suspension, doing something that is considered conduct detrimental could result in them being fined or suspended. The new policy didn't change anything in that regard, it just reiterated it and emphasized it.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

LINK

ClayNation: Goodell's no lawyer ... so why take law in his own hands?
May 28, 2007
By Clay Travis

The NFL's clownish personal conduct policy implemented by Emperor Roger Goodell is an absolute joke. Not to mention a travesty of football justice.

<snip>
And now every time an NFL player is alleged to have done something wrong, the emperor has to rule. Basing all of his rulings on a flawed and overly expansive preemptive punishment. Emperor Goodell is about to find out, if he hasn't already, that old legal maxim: Tough cases make bad law.

On this planet, at least, the employer or his or her superiors can suspend or terminate. Contracts are binding until one party gets a ruling that not all the conditions were met. As in acting like a reasonable human being while representing or working for a company. Or a league.

Princi ipso facto et contrucalitus definimous ad andomogoddelus.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That so-called example doesn't apply to this situation at all.

Here's a much better example -- A circle is round. This plate is a circle. The plate, therefore, MUST be round.

Your example is more like saying, "The plate is blue and round. It does not follow that anything blue is round." Of course not!

Because the media are mostly idiots.

Because some players are idiots, too.

What are you talking about? I knew about it long before you even read it. You had to beg me to tell you what the policy said.

Again, your example doesn't apply at all. It's more like I don't need the calculator anymore, while you finally got a calculator and don't understand how to use it.

Its funny that the example that you use is in a completely diffferent syntax and structure than the actual verbage in the contract but when you apply the structure actually used in the contract the absurdity of your claim is obvious.

Hey why dont we jsut switch what the sentences actually say in the whole contract to suit what we want it to say. Making up stuff so we can claim what we say is true is fun!!!

And i wasnt the players who actually changed the contract so why you are bringing them into it is beyond me. But the depaul law professors are wrong, countless media members are wrong, the league who sent out a memo concerning the changes is wrong as is the union but Adam is right. Quite the egomaniac arent you?

And i didnt beg you for a damn thing.

 

[AdamJT13]

Its funny that the example that you use is in a completely diffferent syntax and structure than the actual verbage in the contract but when you apply the structure actually used in the contract the absurdity of your claim is obvious.

Hey why dont we jsut switch what the sentences actually say in the whole contract to suit what we want it to say. Making up stuff so we can claim what we say is true is fun!!!

Again, you're playing with syntax instead of just admitting that you're wrong. Which you are.

And i wasnt the players who actually changed the contract so why you are bringing them into it is beyond me.

Huh? The policy is FOR the players. Too many of them weren't following it, so it had to be spelled out for them more clearly. As, apparently, it must be for you.

But the depaul law professors are wrong, countless media members are wrong, the league who sent out a memo concerning the changes is wrong as is the union but Adam is right. Quite the egomaniac arent you?

Not at all. And the league and union aren't wrong at all. What's wrong is your interpretation of what they said because you don't understand the conduct policy and the CBA.

And i didnt beg you for a ****n thing.

You most certainly did.

First you said this ...

"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."

Then you said this ...

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

Then you said this ...

"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?"

Then you said this ...

"So you have a copy of the old agreement and what it says but you wont tell us what that is?"

If that's not begging for me to tell you what the policy said, I don't know what is.

Oh wait, I know. You're going to claim that your syntax and verbage does not legally constitute begging, right?

This is hilarious.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, you're playing with syntax instead of just admitting that you're wrong. Which you are.

Huh? The policy is FOR the players. Too many of them weren't following it, so it had to be spelled out for them. As, apparently, it must be for you.

Not at all. And the league and union aren't wrong at all. What's wrong is your interpretation of what they said because you don't understand the conduct policy and the CBA.

You most certainly did.

First you said this ...

"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."

Then you said this ...

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

Then you said this ...

"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?"

Then you said this ...

"So you have a copy of the old agreement and what it says but you wont tell us what that is?"

If that's not begging for me to tell you what the policy said, I don't know what is.

Oh wait, I know. You're going to claim that your syntax and verbage does not legally constitute begging, right?

This is hilarious.

I guess i missed the part where i ask you to post it constitute begging.

Im not messing with the structure. you are.

The sentence reads "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. "

That is one sentence not three. The structure of the sentence is

<noun> shall itself be <noun> and shall be <adjective>.

You try and slpit it into three sentences. Youre the one screwing with the syntax. when you put it into one sentence which is how the contract itelf is written you admit that your assertion is absurd. You change what is actually written instead of admit that youre wrong.

And the contract is legally binding to all players and employees of the NFL.

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.

so the players and the league needed it spelled out to them?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

success shall itself be an action and shall be fun

does it follow that all actions are fun?

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

does it follow that all rights are self evident?

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

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

 

[AdamJT13]

I guess i missed the part where i ask you to post it constitute begging.

Im not messing with the structure. you are.

The sentence reads "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. "

That is one sentence not three. The structure of the sentence is

<noun> shall itself be <noun> and shall be <adjective>.

You try and slpit it into three sentences. Youre the one *****ing with the syntax. when you put it into one sentence which is how the contract itelf is written you admit that your assertion is absurd. You change what is actually written instead of admit that youre wrong.

I'm not wrong. You're choosing one sentence and criticizing the structure for not spelling out what already is known to be true.

We know that a circle is round. We know that the plate is a circle. If I say, "the plate is a circle and is round," that doesn't change any of the facts.

The CBA gives the commissioner the power to fine or suspend any player for conduct detrimental to the league. The conduct policy tells players that certain actions will be deemed conduct detrimental to the league. How does that NOT imply that a fine or suspension could be attached?

Again, like you, the players apparently needed that spelled out for them more plainly.

And the contract is legally binding to all players and employees of the NFL.

so the players and the league needed it spelled out to them?

Obviously, it's almost exclusively the players who keep failing to follow the policy.

 

[AdamJT13]

success shall itself be an action and shall be fun

does it follow that all actions are fun?

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

does it follow that all rights are self evident?

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

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

Again, you've got it all wrong. We already know what conduct detrimental is punishable by suspension, so the fact that failing to comply is both conduct detrimental and punishable by suspension merely reiterates what is true. It doesn't have to be deduced.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not wrong. You're choosing one sentence and criticizing the structure for not spelling out what already is known to be true.

We know that a circle is round. We know that the plate is a circle. If I say, "the plate is a circle and is round," that doesn't change any of the facts.

The CBA gives the commissioner the power to fine or suspend any player for conduct detrimental to the league. The conduct policy tells players that certain actions will be deemed conduct detrimental to the league. How does that NOT imply that a fine or suspension could be attached?

Again, like you, the players apparently needed that spelled out for them more plainly.



Obviously, it's almost exclusively the players who keep failing to follow the policy.

youre making stuff up adam there is no where that is says conduct detrimental is punishable. you keep saying that it does but its not there.

it applies to the players and the league. the new policy even went so far that the standards in the new policy for employees would be higher. they changed it becasue they couldnt punish without a conviction. that is what every single media outlet in the country says.

according to you they are all wrong. the new yourk times, the cincinatti enquirer, the sporting news, the depaul law school, the fort worth star telegram are all wrong but you are right. excuse me if thats weakas feces.

the plate is a serving dish and is round.

all serving dishes are not round.

you are asserting without basis that we know all contract detrimental is punishable.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Quote me where in the policy that it says all conduct detrimental is punishable. It doesnt say it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, you've got it all wrong. We already know what conduct detrimental is punishable by suspension, so the fact that failing to comply is both conduct detrimental and punishable by suspension merely reiterates what is true. It doesn't have to be deduced.

no but it does need to be induced at some point and its not.

 

[AdamJT13]

Quote me where in the policy that it says all conduct detrimental is punishable. It doesnt say it.

The CBA says it. Every player contract says it. The policy implied it and shouldn't have had to spell it out again. It already was a known fact.

they changed it becasue they couldnt punish without a conviction.

That's obviously not correct, as I've shown already in this thread. The policy itself gave examples of things that would result in punishment without conviction -- or without even being illegal -- and a number of players were punished without ever being convicted of anything.

that is what every single media outlet in the country says.

That's not true, either.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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.

Now from the beginning you start out mentioning the clauses for reporting which i might add you were shown to be wrong on and you completely abandoned. We now know that failure to report is only to be used in the final determination of punishment. This is how you start off though. WG quickly latches onto this and off we go.

What? You're as bad as Clay Travis. It DOES NOT MATTER matter if he was convicted or not. He got arrested, and he didn't tell the league or the team. That was a violation of the league's conduct policy and has been AT LEAST since Pacman was a 16-year-old high school player -- long before he entered the league. Per the policy itself, that constitutes "conduct detrimental to the league" and subjects him to discipline from the commissioner.

As Stanley implied, has there even been a previous case of a player failing to report two arrests?

And Goodell is setting his own precedent, which is a good thing, considering the off-field behavior of many current players.

Now your playing staying the course here but this iss when im looking for a copy of the old policy.

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.

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

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

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.

The above is the aforementioned shot at me. Its really quite sad that you resort to these tactics. Its clear that you are starting act childish.

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.

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.).

As he could under the old policy, as well.

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.

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.

Now is the beginning of the current stage of our argument. The bolded portion is important because i over and and over again ask you to show me where it says all 'conduct detrimental' is punishable you finally answer with the next quote but before that.

After this post you completely drop the part about reporting arrests and despite multiple times me subsequently mentioning it being conceded you still drop it.

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?

This is what you initially said was the part of CBA that stated that conduct detrimental is punishable and what we have hashed out for the last couple of hours. It was out of context and when it must of been readily obvious that this in and of itself didnt prove what you had hoped, you once more regress to yet another shelter with this:

The CBA says it. Every player contract says it. The policy implied it and shouldn't have had to spell it out again. It already was a known fact.

That's obviously not correct, as I've shown already in this thread. The policy itself gave examples of things that would result in punishment without conviction -- or without even being illegal -- and a number of players were punished without ever being convicted of anything.

That's not true, either.

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

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

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

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

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.

Jones never got a hearing before the suspension.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

80s Vid that sums up this thread