Chris Henry: Assault Accusation...Claims are false *Updated*

[Bob Sacamano]

summer is there any point in that. we talked about that subject for days and it took 150+ posts to point to section 15 of the players contract.

its a 250 page document and not something you just browse but thanks for playing.

:laugh2:
http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/CBA_Complete.aspx

and then just scroll down to Appendix C and read

5 minutes, tops

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what the hell, you just freakin' said this not that long ago

I never said that he was not within his contractual authority to do what he did

which is what you did do by bringing up the old CBA and saying under that, he had no right to suspend PacMan w/o him being convicted of a crime, when in fact the old CBA gave him that power

wow

you answered my question by bringing up the Tobacco industry's contract, about how you can be within contractual rights, but still be wrong

You dont understand what a double negative implies. again im not surprised.

I never equated the two. You really just fail to grasp the concept of equality and its actually quite sad because weve talked about this for over a month.

HS kids 8
Summer 0

 

[5Stars]

Tags learned his lesson in 1996. i wonder who is going to get hosed before Goodell learns his.

Tags, Goodell & Upshaw Hose Co., INC.

Hoses of all diameters for moving water...on SALE now!

1,000 FEET OF HOSE for all your watering needs! At a GOOD price NOW!!

Not $29.99

Not $39.99.

Just one EASY PAYMENT OFF $49.99..

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:laugh2:
http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/CBA_Complete.aspx

and then just scroll down to Appendix C

5 minutes, tops

its really convenient to say that after you know its there its quite another when you are dealing with a 250 page document in and of itself.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You dont understand what a double negative implies. again im not surprised.

I guess I don't know how it equates to this situation, but please explain

I never equated the two. You really just fail to grasp the concept of equality and its actually quite sad because weve talked about this for over a month.

HS kids 8
Summer 0

so you just used the Tobacco industry as an example to answer my question? how is that not equating the 2?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

its really convenient to say that after you know its there its quite another when you are dealing with a 250 page document in and of itself.

it's the convenience that you should have thought about before you 1st entered this discussion awhile ago

it could have saved you alot of trouble

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it's the convenience that you should have thought about before you 1st entered this discussion awhile ago

it could have saved you alot of trouble

i actually enjoyed the discussion.

its also a convenience you and everyone else has as a direct result of that discussion. see even though i was worng we posited something which mad it very worthwhile. you never posit anything.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess I don't know how it equates to this situation, but please explain

so you just used the Tobacco industry as an example to answer my question? how is that not equating the 2?

saying that the tobacco nondisclosure agreement is an example of how someone can be within contractual rights and be wrong does not mean tobacco company nondisclosure agreements = Goodell's suspension

HS Kids 9
Summer 0

 

[Bob Sacamano]

i actually enjoyed the discussion.

its also a convenience you and everyone else has as a direct result of that discussion. see even though i was worng we posited something which mad it very worthwhile. you never posit anything.

so I see, it doesn't matter if you are ignorant, just post

gotcha

 

[Bob Sacamano]

saying that the tobacco nondisclosure agreement is an example of how someone can be within contractual rights and be wrong does not mean tobacco company nondisclosure agreements = Goodell's suspension

HS Kids 9
Summer 0

but we're talking about Goodell's contract

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

but we're talking about Goodell's contract

so what?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so I see, it doesn't matter if you are ignorant, just post

gotcha

actually that is very tue there is nothing wrong with not knowing as long as you show the capability of learning and its even better if you can teach others something. anyone who read that thread learned a hell of a lot about the the new and old conduct policy and the CBA.

Its exactly why you are able to point right where in the players contract the salient language is. You learned that because of Adam and I's argument.

i could care less if in the end i was wrong.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

actually that is very tue there is nothing wrong with not knowing as long as you show the capability of learning and its even better if you can teach others something. anyone who read that thread learned a hell of a lot about the the new and old conduct policy and the CBA.

Its exactly why you are able to point right where in the players contract the salient language is. You learned that because of Adam and I's argument.

i could care less if in the end i was wrong.

except for you weren't in this good, little discussion, you were an arse

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

except for you weren't in this good, little discussion, you were an arse

Like I have stated before, I could really care less what you think of me. i would need to respect you in order to do that and i have zero respect for you.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Like I have stated before, I could really care less what you think of me. i would need to respect you in order to do that and i have zero respect for you.

only fools need the respect of a fool

so I'm good

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

only fools need the respect of a fool

so I'm good

wow how profound.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Move along guys...

This thread has run its course between you two.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

you're right WG

 

[peplaw06]

I don't think he is jumping the gun the NFL does not need the same burden of prove as a criminal court does just as a civil court does not need to meet the same standards of a criminal case. Goodell can hand down this punishment based on the collective bargaining agreement that has been in the NFL for a while which is called conduct detrimental to the league.

OK, I admit I haven't read the whole thread before posting this, but...

I've read 60 posts and this same line has been posted three times and has been wrong every time. The Commish has NO burden of proof that I'm aware of. He merely has to determine that a player's actions are detrimental to the league. He doesn't have to prove that by 51% or by 90%, or by a preponderance, clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not a civil case nor a criminal case when Goodell is dealing with it. It's merely an employer punishing employees. Goodell has no burden of proof to meet.

I think that's what some people's problem is with Goodell's iron fist regime. He has no standards that are enumerated, other than "what he decides." That doesn't necessarily mean he's right or wrong, but you need standards. The lack of standards leads to confusion and misunderstandings. We don't know what evidence he has. Not that we are entitled to it, but the NFL isn't exactly keeping information from its fans in other forms. They only get secretive when this type of stuff is going on. If you are in tune with the NFL, you can find out just about anything... except what the Commish considered when making suspensions, or why he decided to give one guy 8 and one guy 10 or 16.

 

[peplaw06]

ALso there were cases, Fuzzy, where people believed that the justice system was not working and decided to do it themselves. Jefferson also said that when the system fails the people have the RIGHT to act themselves. No doubt most of the lynchings were probably wrong- but I have read more then a few cases where it was clear that the one lynched had it coming. NOTHING IS EVER 100%. And for those defending our so called JUSTICE system I have two letters for you: OJ.
And while that is the most extreme well known case, there are many others all the time. As regards our system being the best- Being the best of a bad lot is no high praise. I think Jefferson and Adams would be APPALLED at what the system they started has MUTATED too.

I wanna know what lawyer lubed you up and gave it to you in court...?

Oh and I got some "stats" for ya, since I know how much you love stats. I can for the most part back these up though.

95% of all cases EVER filed in a court system are settled. That means that both sides come to an agreement that they think is good enough for them. So 95% of the cases, both sides are in agreement.

The rest -- 5% remember -- go to court and are actually litigated to a ruling, some by a jury, some by a judge. Out of that 5%, you can cite a handful of cases where, in your opinion, a wrong ruling resulted. OJ (the favorite fall back of critics of the justice system), Michael Jackson, then I'm sure you feel a few Supreme Court or Appellate Court cases have been wrongly decided.

Obviously these courts have made mistakes, evident in the ones that have been overturned. I'm sure some cases that are currently precedent will be overruled in the future. But out of ALL of the cases that are filed, I assure you it is a small majority. Even smaller than 10%.

So in a justice system where millions of cases have been filed, 95% settle. Based on that figure alone, I would say that is successful. The number of cases you cite that may have, again in your opinion, wrong decisions is probably 1-2% of the total cases ever filed in the justice system. Name me another industry that is wrong 1-2% of the time?