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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And once again, whether or not the allegations against Pac-Man are true are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the reasons for the suspension... he was suspended for FAILING TO REPORT TWO ARRESTS... he is guilty of failing to report those arrests, that is a violation of the new Player's Code of Conduct, now he's suspended...

The suspensions werent under the new policy and he had the authority under the old with the wording of the players contract. Additionally his suspension specifically lists charges that are pending. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Apparently, even HE recognizes that the suspension is legitimate, even if some in here (who like to pontificate on how their assorted adversaries can't grasp simple concepts) are too obtuse to recognize that fact... he must, inasmuch as he has dropped his appeal of that suspension...

This is just sad. First of all I am not saying that he wasnt within his power. Im just saying his policy of listing pending charges as cause for suspensions is irresponsible even if it is within his authority. I was made aware of section 15 of the players contract over a week ago. Keep up or dont post.

Perhaps you'd be well-served to sit back and ponder the REASONS for Pac-Man's suspension, since you clearly don't grasp why that happened... once you do, you'll FINALLY understand that the suspension was entirely legitimate...

See its things like this that make me say you dont grasp simple concepts. Im not pondering why Jones was suspended. i know why he was suspended as i saw his lawyers appeal. Like how you try and act like you have an informed opinion when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Had Jones not tried to hide those arrests, then Goodell would have had to wait for the outcome of the court cases before deciding what penalty to inflict, if any... but he did try to hide those arrests, and as a result got himself suspended...

He did list those two arrests that he did not report but he also listed two pending cases as cause. Get a clue please.

It really is just that simple-- for those with the ability to grasp simple concepts...

Apprently you dont. You have no idea the facts on this issue and just make crap up.

And that is indeed all Goodell needs to do...

You don't have to LIKE that, you might think that's wrong, but the plain truth is that's reality... those powers were given to him by the collective bargaining agreement...

Im not arguing whether he has the authority or not and have not for over a week. Its still does not mitigate that it is irresponsible to use pending cases as cause for a suspension.

Apparently you just don't understand that commissioners of the major sports are dictators, with virtually unlimited powers... their jobs were created with the intention of giving them such powers...

Again you are making garbage up. The commisioners powers are outlined by each sports CBA and not just unilateral totalitarianism but thanks for trying to make an intelligent point.

Makes sense to ignore something that is irrelevant...

If you had grasped what it was that i was saying you may have had something here but seeing you obviously dont....

How fortunate the league is that your opinion is insignificant...

Well for something so insignificant you sure seem to spend a lot of time addressing it.

No, the bottom line is that 99 per cent of football fans approve of what Goodell is doing... you say that the way he's handling things these days could blow up in his face, but in reality, it appears that his actions have made him POPULAR with most fans of the game...

Made up stats are fun. You and burm should get together and compare notes. And if he continues to act in the manner that he has been it will blow up in his face just like it did to his predecessor in 1996. thats the problem when he has complete authority in regards to this. if he makes a mistake it doesnt matter the player is still screwed with no recourse.

For sure, I haven't seen any of the backlash that you keep warning us about... just a few contrarians like yourself, blowin' a lot of hot air...

Look up what happened to to Tagliabue in 1996 in regards to a very similar cituation and why he changed the way he dealt with the conduct policy despite the authority he had.

Look around you, you can't help but notice that you have taken a position held by a fairly small minority of fans on this board... I believe this board is fairly representative of football fans in general when it comes to this issue, which is to say I believe the vast majority of fans have no problems whatsoever with the punishments Goodell has handed down to Jones or Henry...

Im an elitist and as such whats popular really has no bearing on my thought process. Most people are sheep. You be happy that a bunch of people agree with you and ill be interested in being right.

 

[WoodysGirl]

He lists allegations still pending in a court of law as the conduct detrimental to the league. You keep babbling that all he has to do is say that a player is detrimental to the league without even looking as to the source of why they are detriments to the league.

As much as I hate to get in the middle of a pissing contest, but what was stated by Goodell and reported when the suspensions came down was this:

NFL Commissioner ROGER GOODELL has informed ADAM JONES of the Tennessee Titans and CHRIS HENRY of the Cincinnati Bengals that they have been suspended without pay for violating the NFL’s personal conduct policy and engaging in conduct detrimental to the league on numerous occasions, the NFL announced today.

Jones was suspended for the 2007 season, while Henry was suspended for the first eight games of the 2007 regular season. Each player must earn the right to be reinstated.

“We must protect the integrity of the NFL,” Commissioner Goodell said. “The highest standards of conduct must be met by everyone in the NFL because it is a privilege to represent the NFL, not a right. These players, and all members of our league, have to make the right choices and decisions in their conduct on a consistent basis.”

In a letter to each player, Commissioner Goodell wrote: “Your conduct has brought embarrassment and ridicule upon yourself, your club, and the NFL, and has damaged the reputation of players throughout the league. You have put in jeopardy an otherwise promising NFL career, and have risked both your own safety and the safety of others through your off-field actions. In each of these respects, you have engaged in conduct detrimental to the NFL and failed to live up to the standards expected of NFL players. Taken as a whole, this conduct warrants significant sanction.”

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85266

I haven't seen anything that showed that Goodell listed anything as a reason. What was reported was that everything they did as a whole warranted sanctions.

I think what you saw as a list of allegations were Pacman's appeal details and what his lawyers were going to argue on his behalf.

 

[silverbear]

As much as I hate to get in the middle of a pissing contest, but what was stated by Goodell and reported when the suspensions came down was this:

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85266

I haven't seen anything that showed that Goodell listed anything as a reason. What was reported was that everything they did as a whole warranted sanctions.

I think what you saw as a list of allegations were Pacman's appeal details and what his lawyers were going to argue on his behalf.

Exactly right, WG...

And now, Fuzzy will probably try to argue that too, so I'll preempt that attempt by challenging him to produce the quotes from Goodell outlining the reasons for Jones' suspensions... from Goodell, not from Pac-Man's own lawyers...

Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because among the things THEY listed in that letter was twice failing to notify the league when Jones was arrested... and regardless of the validity of the other reasons THEY listed, that one alone is all the justification Goodell needed to suspend ol' Pac-Man...

For those with the ability to grasp simple concepts, Jones dropping his appeal is a tacit admission on his part that Goodell did indeed have every right to suspend him... but I'm sure that Fuzz will still belabor the point, because that's what he does...

And he'll probably tell me again (and again and again) to get MY facts straight... LOL...

 

[silverbear]

Additionally his suspension specifically lists charges that are pending. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

OK, if that's the case, quote the suspension... specifically list the reasons Goodell gave for the suspension...

This is just sad. First of all I am not saying that he wasnt within his power. Im just saying his policy of listing pending charges as cause for suspensions is irresponsible even if it is within his authority. I was made aware of section 15 of the players contract over a week ago. Keep up or dont post.

I know you don't like having people reminded that you keep on changing your stance, ever so slightly, as you become aware of the facts, but I think it's important to keep reminding them of it...

As for what YOU think is "irresponsible", the response is obvious-- WHO CARES??

See its things like this that make me say you dont grasp simple concepts.

Chuckle... once again, it wasn't ME you originally levelled that charge against, it was Bob... so if you're now attempting to level it against me, all that shows is that you lack originality...

Im not pondering why Jones was suspended. i know why he was suspended as i saw his lawyers appeal. Like how you try and act like you have an informed opinion when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Thus saith the man who claims that he has seen the specific reasons Goodell listed for suspending Pac-Man...

He did list those two arrests that he did not report but he also listed two pending cases as cause. Get a clue please.

You first... for openers, none of us can find any evidence that he listed anything as cause, for public consumption... but more important, if even you concede that he listed the failure to report those two arrests, the rest of your argument becomes utterly irrelevant, because those twin failures all by themselves constitute all the justification he needed... so it doesn't matter if the other reasons you CLAIM he gave are valid or not, Pac-Man violated the new policy quite clearly, and made himself subject to suspension...

And again, for those with the ability to grasp simple concepts, JONES DROPPED HIS APPEAL, which is the clearest possible signal that even HE recognized that Goodell acted within his power... the only one, apparently, who STILL hasn't figured that out is YOU...

Apprently you dont. You have no idea the facts on this issue and just make crap up.

Well, one of us does...

BTW, nice way of calling me a liar, Mr. I Don't Insult People On This Board...

Again you are making garbage up. The commisioners powers are outlined by each sports CBA and not just unilateral totalitarianism but thanks for trying to make an intelligent point.

While what you say is basically true, it doesn't make what I said untrue... yes, the assorted collective bargaining agreements of the assorted leagues are what give each commissioner their powers... but in each case, those CBAs grant the commissioner near absolute power to deal with issues like discipline...

It has been that way ever since the days of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis and the Chicago Black Sox... he was the first commissioner ever of baseball, and thus the first commissioner of a major sports league ever... and he was given his job for more or less the same reason Goodell was given his, with a mandate to clean up illegal behavior by the players, in this case associating with gamblers that led to the fixing of a World Series...

If you simply bothered to look up the origins of that office, you'd see that it was conceived right from the start as a kind of sheriff for the sport in question... and if you knew the history of this commissioner, it was reported at the time that he was named to succeed Tagliabue that he got the job for just that reason-- to be the new sheriff in town...

IOW, the owners hired him because they wanted him to do exactly what he's doing, crack down on lawless behavior by the players... if he failed to do what he was hired to do, they'd fire him, plain and simple...

That's what YOU don't fail to grasp-- the historical precedents set by previous commissioners of major sports, and the dynamic behind the hiring of Goodell in the first place...

And if he continues to act in the manner that he has been it will blow up in his face

You keep saying that, but other than a veritable handful of contrarians-- like yourself-- the reaction of Joe Fan seems to be overwhelmingly POSITIVE toward what Goodell has done here...

Look up what happened to to Tagliabue in 1996 in regards to a very similar cituation and why he changed the way he dealt with the conduct policy despite the authority he had.

Why don't you tell us all about it??

Im an elitist

Too bad you're not an elitist who makes an effort to inform himself before expounding on subjects like this one... elitism only works when you know what you're talking about...

and as such whats popular really has no bearing on my thought process. Most people are sheep. You be happy that a bunch of people agree with you and ill be interested in being right.

I see, so if everybody in the world disagrees with you (a bit of hyperbole here, I'll admit), then it's the whole world that's wrong...

ROTFLMAO...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you sure are incapable of picking up on anything beyond that.

he did it and i have PROOF Its not slander if its true.

As much as I hate to get in the middle of a pissing contest, but what was stated by Goodell and reported when the suspensions came down was this:

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85266

I haven't seen anything that showed that Goodell listed anything as a reason. What was reported was that everything they did as a whole warranted sanctions.

I think what you saw as a list of allegations were Pacman's appeal details and what his lawyers were going to argue on his behalf.

WG please click the link in the above. Goodell specifically cites the pending obstruction charge. This idea that he just has a rubber stamp that says conduct detrimental that hes using is not true.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, if that's the case, quote the suspension... specifically list the reasons Goodell gave for the suspension...

I have and posted it several times in this thread now.

I know you don't like having people reminded that you keep on changing your stance, ever so slightly, as you become aware of the facts, but I think it's important to keep reminding them of it...

Umm no i havent its pretty evident you have no idea what my stance is and just guess at it. I have from the very beginning thought his actions to be irresponsible. Now after reading the old conduct policy I gathered he didnt have the power to suspend on allegations but Adam showed me the players contract and it was evident he did.

As for what YOU think is "irresponsible", the response is obvious-- WHO CARES??

You only look at it from the lens of what is good for you. You approve of it and see others who have agreed with you so life is peachy. I know from history that actions like this lead to mistakes and the person who is mistakenly suspended because Goodell bowed to public pressure and jumped the gun is screwed with no recourse. That is the problem with thoroughgoing power. If you could look past the here and now you might actually realize it.

Chuckle... once again, it wasn't ME you originally levelled that charge against, it was Bob... so if you're now attempting to level it against me, all that shows is that you lack originality...

What does temporal order have to do with anything. the shoe fits you as well.

Thus saith the man who claims that he has seen the specific reasons Goodell listed for suspending Pac-Man...

i linked it in this thread. That is something that you may wish to attempt when you make these types of claims.

You first... for openers, none of us can find any evidence that he listed anything as cause, for public consumption... but more important, if even you concede that he listed the failure to report those two arrests, the rest of your argument becomes utterly irrelevant, because those twin failures all by themselves constitute all the justification he needed... so it doesn't matter if the other reasons you CLAIM he gave are valid or not, Pac-Man violated the new policy quite clearly, and made himself subject to suspension...

Im not arguing that he wasnt within his authority. When someone tells you that it should be simple to grasp at that point. Oh btw i did link legal documents pertaining to the cause of suspension.

And again, for those with the ability to grasp simple concepts, JONES DROPPED HIS APPEAL, which is the clearest possible signal that even HE recognized that Goodell acted within his power... the only one, apparently, who STILL hasn't figured that out is YOU...

He couldnt win an appeal because Goodell was within his authority. That does not mean that Goodell is using his authority well. The two are entirely seperate issues.

Well, one of us does...

BTW, nice way of calling me a liar, Mr. I Don't Insult People On This Board...

Way to try and put words in my mouth. i said you didnt know the facts and its obvious you do not.

While what you say is basically true, it doesn't make what I said untrue... yes, the assorted collective bargaining agreements of the assorted leagues are what give each commissioner their powers... but in each case, those CBAs grant the commissioner near absolute power to deal with issues like discipline...

It has been that way ever since the days of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis and the Chicago Black Sox... he was the first commissioner ever of baseball, and thus the first commissioner of a major sports league ever... and he was given his job for more or less the same reason Goodell was given his, with a mandate to clean up illegal behavior by the players, in this case associating with gamblers that led to the fixing of a World Series...

If you simply bothered to look up the origins of that office, you'd see that it was conceived right from the start as a kind of sheriff for the sport in question... and if you knew the history of this commissioner, it was reported at the time that he was named to succeed Tagliabue that he got the job for just that reason-- to be the new sheriff in town...

IOW, the owners hired him because they wanted him to do exactly what he's doing, crack down on lawless behavior by the players... if he failed to do what he was hired to do, they'd fire him, plain and simple...

Using the mental mindset of people 90 years ago to try and explain the situation now is laughable. There is a little something called a CBA that was not in existence back then not to mention the formation of sports labor organizations etc. You completely ignore the effect of the NLRB and aribtration on MLB and the authority of the commsioner.

The boottomline is that all of the major sports have charters as wellas a CBA that specifically grant and outline the commsioners powers. By that he is limited to what he can and cannot do by these bylaws. It is not unilateral totalitarianism like it was 90 years ago.

That's what YOU don't fail to grasp-- the historical precedents set by previous commissioners of major sports, and the dynamic behind the hiring of Goodell in the first place...

Google Tagliabue James Lofton 1996 and Ive got your historical precedent. That would be the modern era not your bogus interpretation of a different sport a century ago.

You keep saying that, but other than a veritable handful of contrarians-- like yourself-- the reaction of Joe Fan seems to be overwhelmingly POSITIVE toward what Goodell has done here...

The Germans were cheering Hitler in 1936 as well. i could care less. Most people dont think for themselves and I always am amazed by the power of propoganda.

Too bad you're not an elitist who makes an effort to inform himself before expounding on subjects like this one... elitism only works when you know what you're talking about...

I see, so if everybody in the world disagrees with you (a bit of hyperbole here, I'll admit), then it's the whole world that's wrong...

ROTFLMAO...

No its not that people have to disagree with me but long ago I stopped taking what people say based of faith. A compelling argument is what sways me not because someone says so. And citing baseballs commisioner 90 years ago is not compelling by any stretch of the imagination especially when i have famiarity with the CBA of the NFL now.

What you fail to grasp is that the commsioner is comparable to the executor in the american model of democracy and as such his powers are defined and limited by a constitutiona nd in this case the CBA.

But that is not even my bloody point. Its the powers that he has that I do not like and if he was granted totalitarian authority I would loathe it even more. The fact that his pwoers are limited is a GOOD thing.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Wow they are scapegoats now. Thats the worst justification i have heard yet.

it's not a justification, but I see them as being such because they weren't the only players getting into trouble, just in PacMan and Henry's case, just the most repeat offenders and in Tank's case, he actually served jail time

you usually go after the big fish to try and make a point, or install change, it's a ****ty fact of life, but there it is

And as for this duty bound garbage its just something you made up. Fact is he listed pending allegations as reasons.

I'm not making that up, protecting the player's and league's image is in the CBA and the Commisioner has to look out for it

When he lists pending cases as reasons for suspension that is a bad thing. Im not saying that he has to do anything i just think his arrogance in the matter is reprehensible.

tell me, what reasons is he going to list if he doesn't use pending cases?

Its completely relevant. All you care about is these guys getting hammered i try to look at the bigger picture. Fact is he listed pending cases as reason for suspension and he didnt have to.

funny you should say that since the bigger picture is that the arrest rate of NFL players has doubled, hell, 9 players were arrested from 1 team alone

Its not an opinion that he could have suspended them without listing pending cases as cause. That would be fact.

it's the opinion that listing them is a serious broach, I don't agree w/ that thinking

Youre again making stuff up. Offer any sort of evidence on your Stalin assertion. Its garbage not even worth addressing on its merit.

in the Purge, he held public "trials" condemning certain political factions as a bunch of Troskyites, all the charges were made up of course and the outcome was already decided before the trial, but he knew he couldn't just execute a bunch of people w/o reason or he would have been ate up in the public and political forum

this all goes into the point that Goodell needs a clear and concise list of why he's suspending PacMan, Henry and Tank, throwing the pending cases out doesn't serve that purpose

And according to you all he has to do is say they are detrimental not specifically list pending casees so why did he then? Thats my whole problem.

no, according to me he has to list pending cases as reasons for suspension

What they agree to or not is not the issue here. They have their nuts in a vise and they know it because the commisioner is within hsi power to do what he wants in this regard that still changes nothing in my stance.

it's a big issue since they are the people who should be most concerned about this

You guys keep crowing this as if you actually accomplished something. I was wring fine but what i do remember is both of you making the CBA comments and then when i asked to demonstrate where you couldnt do it. Heck it even took Adam 150 posts over days to demonstrate it.

But once again this is a case of you riding someone elses coattails. Must suck to never have any accomplishments of your own.

we're not crowing about anything, we're just laughing at you being wrong

but if you think an accomplishment is making an arse of yourself, them more power to you

 

[silverbear]

WG please click the link in the above. Goodell specifically cites the pending obstruction charge. This idea that he just has a rubber stamp that says conduct detrimental that hes using is not true.

LOL... WG tells you that you're quoting Pac-Man's <AWYERS, not GOODELL, and you argue with her... which would be fine, except the link you provide is EXACTLY the letter from Pac-Man's lawyers that she referred to...

Here's your tipoff, found in the first line of that letter:

"As you are aware, the undersigned and this firm represent Mr. Adam Jones in connection with the above-captioned appeal of the decision"...

For those with the ability to grasp simple concepts, this means this is a letter from Pac-Man's lawyers, and as such, is THEIR CHARACTERIZATION of the charges against their client...

Further, if you did bother to read the letter, you'll see that their appeal was not based on questioning the commissioner's authority to punish based on those charges, but rather on the SEVERITY of the punishment assessed...

Go on, pull out the quotes from the letter you cited that say their appeal is based on Goodell's exceeding his authority, that indeed claim that Goodell had no authority to suspend based on the reasons THEY gave...

I swear, I never have seen anybody like you... you'll argue with anybody, even when your argument only supports what your antagonist is saying... WG tells you that your claims are based on a letter written by Pac-Man's lawyers, not anything Goodell wrote, and in rebuttal, you cite a letter written by Pac-Man's lawyers... even then, the letter you cite does NOT refer to Goodell's authority to levy suspensions in this case, but rather to the severity of the suspensions imposed...

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it??

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The Germans were cheering Hitler in 1936 as well. i could care less. Most people dont think for themselves and I always am amazed by the power of propoganda.

so us and NFL players don't think for ourselves? nice

btw, it isn't progaganda which is influencing us, it's being tired of reading about an NFL player getting arrested every month, the players are sick of it too

I love how you make out anyone who doesn't agree w/ your thinking as being complete morons, when it's you who's been wrong, time and TIME again

 

[silverbear]

I have and posted it several times in this thread now.

No, you haven't... you've posted a letter from Pac-Man's lawyers, giving THEIR synopsis of the reasons behind their client's suspension... you have no idea if their synopsis is accurate or not...

And of course, even in that letter, his lawyers don't claim that Goodell had no right to impose a suspension for the reasons given, they merely protested the SEVERITY of the suspension... so, even they apparently don't buy into your specious little theory...

The challenge has been, and remains, for you to post what GOODELL wrote or said about the suspension...

Umm no i havent its pretty evident you have no idea what my stance is and just guess at it. I have from the very beginning thought his actions to be irresponsible. Now after reading the old conduct policy I gathered he didnt have the power to suspend on allegations but Adam showed me the players contract and it was evident he did.

Which should tell you that you utterly misinterpreted the CBA, since a contract could not contain a clause giving the commissioner powers that the CBA does not provide for... but that would involve logical thought, wouldn't it??

You only look at it from the lens of what is good for you.

And you look at it through a contrarian lens, of what annoys you... of course, you offer no alternatives... you gripe on and on and on about how UNFAIR this is to poor, persecuted Pac-Man, but at no point do you seem to go on record with what you think would be a FAIR punishment...

Any "critic" can snarl at what has been done, but if he can't offer a reasonable alternative, he's not offering any commentary with substance...

I know from history that actions like this lead to mistakes and the person who is mistakenly suspended because Goodell bowed to public pressure and jumped the gun is screwed with no recourse.

Your theory falls apart once you recognize one REALITY-- Pac-Man was not "mistakenly suspended"... even his own lawyers don't suggest he was... he DID fail to report two different arrests, and that's a black and white violation of the Player Conduct Policy...

So your basic premise is invalid, and all this bandwidth expended has been a waste of your time, and ours...

What does temporal order have to do with anything.

In this case, it points out how you love to argue, even when you don't really have a command of the facts of the argument... you go on and on and on and on about how I deserved to be insulted by your comments regarding the grasping of simple concepts, when in fact I was not the target of that insult...

Which demonstrates to the folks reading this that you can't even keep a basic fact like who you were trying to insult straight... how can you then be trusted to have the other, more significant facts surrounding this larger debate straight??

i linked it in this thread.

Again, you did no such thing... you linked us to a letter written by Pac-Man's LAWYERS, which gave THEIR take on the reasons why their client was suspended... do pay attention, I'm not gonna post this challenge any more; show me where GOODELL, or even the league offices, specified what the charges were against Jones...

Not what his lawyers think are the reasons, the official reasons given by Goodell himself, or the league office...

Im not arguing that he wasnt within his authority.

Well then, you must be arguing that he has too much authority, since you think that Pac-Man Jones is being "wronged" somehow...

At which point, I'll simply note that he was given those powers as a result of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, which means the players GAVE him those powers in negotiation with the league... I'll also note that the players largely SUPPORT Goodell in his crackdown on lawless behavior by players...

So clearly, no matter what YOU in your infinite wisdom think is too much power for Goodell, the league and the PLAYERS disagree with you...

He couldnt win an appeal because Goodell was within his authority. That does not mean that Goodell is using his authority well. The two are entirely seperate issues.

And the second issue is absolutely MEANINGLESS... it is a waste of all of our time...

It is also your opinion, one that is not shared by the vast majority of people... I know, I know, you're an elitist, and don't care about what the vast majority of people think or say; they must be wrong, if they disagree with your superior take on the subject...

But you have one little problem-- the league cares a good deal more about the opinions of the vast majority of people than they do about the opinion of a few contrarian elitists like yourself... you do not represent a large enough demographic for them to take your contrarian complaints seriously...

So what YOU might think about how Goodell uses his authority isn't really important, is it?? The court of public opinion, the one that Goodell and the NFL does care about, seems to be squarely on their side in this...

Way to try and put words in my mouth. i said you didnt know the facts and its obvious you do not.

Well, I have to be real careful what I say here, lest I do cross over the line of what's permitted in the way of rebuttal... so I'll simply say that you rather distorted the truth with that line above, because you left out JUST a little of what you REALLY wrote... here's the ENTIRE accusation:

"You have no idea the facts on this issue and just make crap up."

And what do we call folks who "just make crap up", boys and girls??

That's right, we call them LIARS... and it wasn't the first time you made that accusation...

"Again you are making garbage up."

Again, that's a carefully worded way of calling me a liar, and everybody who's reading this thread knows it... but you claim to be too principled to engage in insults, eh??

Using the mental mindset of people 90 years ago to try and explain the situation now is laughable.

Pointing out the base reason why the office of commissioner was created in the first place is laughable??

There is a little something called a CBA that was not in existence back then not to mention the formation of sports labor organizations etc. You completely ignore the effect of the NLRB and aribtration on MLB and the authority of the commsioner.

Where exactly did I say the job description was identical back then to what it is today?? All I did was point out the origin of the job, the reasons why the job was created in the first place... those reasons are still in play today, the commissioner's office is rather like the vice principal's office in junior high school-- that's where you get sent for disciplining...

The boottomline is that all of the major sports have charters as wellas a CBA that specifically grant and outline the commsioners powers. By that he is limited to what he can and cannot do by these bylaws. It is not unilateral totalitarianism like it was 90 years ago.

While that's true, it's also a non sequitur, given that you have repeatedly said that you now acknowledge that he can do what he did... even you admit he did not exceed his limits, so what's the point of now raising this issue??

Answer-- it's another attempt by you to blur the REAL issues, because your position on the real issues is indefensible...

Google Tagliabue James Lofton 1996 and Ive got your historical precedent. That would be the modern era not your bogus interpretation of a different sport a century ago.

If you have an historical precedent to make regarding that situation, lay out the facts here...

The Germans were cheering Hitler in 1936 as well. i could care less. Most people dont think for themselves and I always am amazed by the power of propoganda.

Chuckle... once again, the whole world's wrong, and you alone are right...

What you fail to grasp is that the commsioner is comparable to the executor in the american model of democracy and as such his powers are defined and limited by a constitutiona nd in this case the CBA.

So, we're back to talking out of both sides of our mouth again, are we??

One second, you say that you have long ago conceded that Goodell had the authority to do what he did, then you turn around and try to insinuate that he has exceeded his authority...

I mean, that MUST be what you're trying to insinuate here, otherwise this observation really doesn't make any sense at all...

Its the powers that he has that I do not like

Unfortunately for you, neither the NFL nor the NFLPA seems to care what you like or dislike in this situation... until you get a LOT of people who agree with you, they never will...

Good luck with that...

Oh, BTW, merely adopting contrarian stances for the sake of adopting contrarian stances does not make you a superior intellect... indeed, when your stances are based on little to nothing in the way of logic or facts, it rather diminishes how that intellect is perceived by others...

 

[silverbear]

I love how you make out anyone who doesn't agree w/ your thinking as being complete morons, when it's you who's been wrong, time and TIME again

Ahhh, but that's what "elitists" do... and we have Fuzzy's own words identifying himself as one of them there elitists...

Talk about having an exaggerated opinion of one's self...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it's not a justification, but I see them as being such because they weren't the only players getting into trouble, just in PacMan and Henry's case, just the most repeat offenders and in Tank's case, he actually served jail time

you usually go after the big fish to try and make a point, or install change, it's a ****ty fact of life, but there it is

Im well aware of why he would do it but making scapegoats is widely held as unfair to those who are made scapegoats of. It may be a 'reality' but if it is its a crappy one.

I'm not making that up, protecting the player's and league's image is in the CBA and the Commisioner has to look out for it

This is complete and utter BS. There is nothing in the CBA that compells the commsioner has to act. If anything it says the commisioner has discretion. Quote something or quit telling this lie.

tell me, what reasons is he going to list if he doesn't use pending cases?

Use cases that are already closed or deferred or use the arrests that he failed to report. He had his choice.

funny you should say that since the bigger picture is that the arrest rate of NFL players has doubled, hell, 9 players were arrested from 1 team alone

Have any evidence to support this statistic. i remember a few years ago when Carruth, Lewis and Pittman were running around and it sure seemed the polic blotter was full. Weell lookie HERE. This is evidence that says that the NFL players arrest rate is half of what the general population is. And you claim that im always the one that is wrong?

it's the opinion that listing them is a serious broach, I don't agree w/ that thinking

Im going to assume you meant breach because broach makes even less sense than this does. im not saying hes breaching contract im saying hes acting irresponsibly.

in the Purge, he held public "trials" condemning certain political factions as a bunch of Troskyites, all the charges were made up of course and the outcome was already decided before the trial, but he knew he couldn't just execute a bunch of people w/o reason or he would have been ate up in the public and political forum

That was in the very beginning of his reign where he was still trying to establish power. later on he deported whole cultures east and had them killed/enslaved with little to no justification.

this all goes into the point that Goodell needs a clear and concise list of why he's suspending PacMan, Henry and Tank, throwing the pending cases out doesn't serve that purpose

Im not denying that he needed to have a clear and concise cause. What im saying is that he should have a clear and concise list of cause that doesnt include pending cases.

no, according to me he has to list pending cases as reasons for suspension

Now you are just all over the place. What happened to he had to just say that a player was detrimental and that was that?

what really cute is that you and bear contradict each other yet you give high fives like youre actually getting somewhere.

we're not crowing about anything, we're just laughing at you being wrong

What am i worng about summer? i can say you are wrong unequivocably about the CBA compelling the commisioner to act in general tersm as wella s being dead wrong about the arrest rates of players just froom this most recent gem. You lay out these generalizations with nothing to back them up.

but if you think an accomplishment is making an arse of yourself, them more power to you

As i have zero respect for your ability to form an intelligent opinion i could care less what your opinion of me is.

so us and NFL players don't think for ourselves? nice

btw, it isn't progaganda which is influencing us, it's being tired of reading about an NFL player getting arrested every month, the players are sick of it too

The bolded part is pure comedy. The fact that you make up bogus stats to try and bolster what the propoganda machine feeds you is even funnier. Bloody sheep.

I love how you make out anyone who doesn't agree w/ your thinking as being complete morons, when it's you who's been wrong, time and TIME again

i havent called anyone a moron much less anyone who disagrees with me. I formulate my opnion on you based on your ability to grasp ideas and form your own.

And again what have i been wrong on summer? You going to try and tell us that habeus corpus = due process again?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, you haven't... you've posted a letter from Pac-Man's lawyers, giving THEIR synopsis of the reasons behind their client's suspension... you have no idea if their synopsis is accurate or not...

And of course, even in that letter, his lawyers don't claim that Goodell had no right to impose a suspension for the reasons given, they merely protested the SEVERITY of the suspension... so, even they apparently don't buy into your specious little theory...

The challenge has been, and remains, for you to post what GOODELL wrote or said about the suspension...

It specifically states "the commisioner issued the decision baseed upon 4 events." So you are trying to say that Jones' counsel sent a letter to the league requesting information to the league but lied? Thats so weak i dont know where to start.

Also you still have yet to grasp the idea that im not saying the commisioner was not with in his authority. Really until you figure that part out everything you say is moot.

Which should tell you that you utterly misinterpreted the CBA, since a contract could not contain a clause giving the commissioner powers that the CBA does not provide for... but that would involve logical thought, wouldn't it??

No, that would involve making garbage up. The contract can stand on its own and is actually an appendix of the CBA. Show me some logical proof that this is the case or shut up.

And you look at it through a contrarian lens, of what annoys you... of course, you offer no alternatives... you gripe on and on and on about how UNFAIR this is to poor, persecuted Pac-Man, but at no point do you seem to go on record with what you think would be a FAIR punishment...

Ive outlined how he could have suspended Pacman without listing pending cases even if you are unable to figure it out. He has a deferred case and two unreported arrest in additon the the pending ones. heck he could have waited a couple of minths and nailed him for everything. its sad how little you know about what you are trying to argue about.

Any "critic" can snarl at what has been done, but if he can't offer a reasonable alternative, he's not offering any commentary with substance...

See the above.

Your theory falls apart once you recognize one REALITY-- Pac-Man was not "mistakenly suspended"... even his own lawyers don't suggest he was... he DID fail to report two different arrests, and that's a black and white violation of the Player Conduct Policy...

Actually its not a violation of the conduct policy its a violation of the players contract and maybe the CBa but im not sure on that. Before you babble about something you dont understand, the conduct policy is not actually in the CBA. But really how many times do i have to tell you 'I am not arguing that Goodell was acting outside of his authority' for you finally figure it out. At this point its getting sad. I know youre old and all but geez.

So your basic premise is invalid, and all this bandwidth expended has been a waste of your time, and ours...

You still have yet to figure out what my major premise is so keep on floundering away.

In this case, it points out how you love to argue, even when you don't really have a command of the facts of the argument... you go on and on and on and on about how I deserved to be insulted by your comments regarding the grasping of simple concepts, when in fact I was not the target of that insult...

You are getting caught up in temporal order as if it has some siginifigance. And i actually said i am apathetic as to how you recieve my observation of your failure to grasp simple concepts. if you feel insulted im sorry but it still doesnt mean you dont fail to grasp simple things.

Which demonstrates to the folks reading this that you can't even keep a basic fact like who you were trying to insult straight... how can you then be trusted to have the other, more significant facts surrounding this larger debate straight??

its not my fault that neither of you can grasp stuff my old students could easily. the two arent mutually exclusive and the temporal order has no signifigance. i just happened to notic it from summer before you.

Again, you did no such thing... you linked us to a letter written by Pac-Man's LAWYERS, which gave THEIR take on the reasons why their client was suspended... do pay attention, I'm not gonna post this challenge any more; show me where GOODELL, or even the league offices, specified what the charges were against Jones...

Not what his lawyers think are the reasons, the official reasons given by Goodell himself, or the league office...

It still is proof and it cited the commisioners suspension. its certainly better proof than anything youve brought to the table. Basically your saying his lwyers lied as if that makes any sense when the letter was TO THE LEAGUE OFFICE.

Well then, you must be arguing that he has too much authority, since you think that Pac-Man Jones is being "wronged" somehow...

At which point, I'll simply note that he was given those powers as a result of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, which means the players GAVE him those powers in negotiation with the league... I'll also note that the players largely SUPPORT Goodell in his crackdown on lawless behavior by players...

So clearly, no matter what YOU in your infinite wisdom think is too much power for Goodell, the league and the PLAYERS disagree with you...

Wow after three days the old man is finally getting a clue.

Do you have any evidence to the players disposition in terms of the commisioner suspending people on pending charges? I didnt think so.

You dont even discuss the possible harm that it could and has in the past caused you simply fall back on this bandwagon garbage. Popular consensus doesnt prove anything.

And the second issue is absolutely MEANINGLESS... it is a waste of all of our time...

Wow this is simply amazing insight here. Your reasoning is just so clear.

It is also your opinion, one that is not shared by the vast majority of people... I know, I know, you're an elitist, and don't care about what the vast majority of people think or say; they must be wrong, if they disagree with your superior take on the subject...

Are you familar with what a bandwagon fallacy is? probably not so ill help you out. Popular opinion is not grounds for an argument and its pretty obvious here that is all you have to stand on. Youre unable to argue the merits of what i say but you make up crap about everyone disagrees with me. Got any proof?

But you have one little problem-- the league cares a good deal more about the opinions of the vast majority of people than they do about the opinion of a few contrarian elitists like yourself... you do not represent a large enough demographic for them to take your contrarian complaints seriously...

So what YOU might think about how Goodell uses his authority isn't really important, is it?? The court of public opinion, the one that Goodell and the NFL does care about, seems to be squarely on their side in this...

Now you speak for the league this is great. One thing i really hate about older people especially men is that thye think that they can speak on the behalf of others. Again you care to show some proof on this or are you just going to babble?

I would contend with about just as much proof as you that the league knows that average Joe fan isnt saavy enough to tell the difference and will simply be happy with the idea what 'something' is being done.

Well, I have to be real careful what I say here, lest I do cross over the line of what's permitted in the way of rebuttal... so I'll simply say that you rather distorted the truth with that line above, because you left out JUST a little of what you REALLY wrote... here's the ENTIRE accusation:

"You have no idea the facts on this issue and just make crap up."

And what do we call folks who "just make crap up", boys and girls??

That's right, we call them LIARS... and it wasn't the first time you made that accusation...

"Again you are making garbage up."

Again, that's a carefully worded way of calling me a liar, and everybody who's reading this thread knows it... but you claim to be too principled to engage in insults, eh??

Hey youre the one that likes to insert your opinions for the opinions of say Roger Goodell or the players etc. Hey if you think that makes you a liar then perhaps you should consider stopping it. Fact is you are repeatedly making claims without backing it up even remotely and to make matters worse you dont try and back them up; instead you come up with whines like this one.

And im sorry its so difficult to actually respond rationally. i personally find this rather amusing; watching you flounder around.

Pointing out the base reason why the office of commissioner was created in the first place is laughable??

Have any evidence beyond beacuse you say so? Didnt think so. how about some quotes from the NFL constitution that might help.

Where exactly did I say the job description was identical back then to what it is today?? All I did was point out the origin of the job, the reasons why the job was created in the first place... those reasons are still in play today, the commissioner's office is rather like the vice principal's office in junior high school-- that's where you get sent for disciplining...

Umm no but again your the one thats making this stuff up. How about some proof or something rather then 'Silverbear says so' meteing out punishment is certainly part of what he does but he does quite a bit more.

While that's true, it's also a non sequitur, given that you have repeatedly said that you now acknowledge that he can do what he did... even you admit he did not exceed his limits, so what's the point of now raising this issue??

The potential for harm for him using pending cases as cause for suspensions. Ive actually outlined it extensively perhaps you should reread my posts that you didnt understand the first time instead of wasting my time.

Answer-- it's another attempt by you to blur the REAL issues, because your position on the real issues is indefensible...

You say youre not even sure what my position is but now its indefensible. Do you always make stuff up as you go along?

If you have an historical precedent to make regarding that situation, lay out the facts here...

READ THIS

Chuckle... once again, the whole world's wrong, and you alone are right...

And once again the old man thinks he can speak for the 'whole world.'

So, we're back to talking out of both sides of our mouth again, are we??

One second, you say that you have long ago conceded that Goodell had the authority to do what he did, then you turn around and try to insinuate that he has exceeded his authority...

I mean, that MUST be what you're trying to insinuate here, otherwise this observation really doesn't make any sense at all...

You cannot even explain why this is. The comment would be to the intent of what the commisioner was modeled after. I think an exacutor is much more apt than your principal analogy. Try looking at it in context rather than making up crap that isnt there.

Unfortunately for you, neither the NFL nor the NFLPA seems to care what you like or dislike in this situation... until you get a LOT of people who agree with you, they never will...

Good luck with that...

Once again you claim to speak for others how nice. That quote from above was from a panel from Depaul university of law that was asked to look into it by the league. It seems they cared enough to ask their opinion; funny how they never asked for yours.

Oh, BTW, merely adopting contrarian stances for the sake of adopting contrarian stances does not make you a superior intellect... indeed, when your stances are based on little to nothing in the way of logic or facts, it rather diminishes how that intellect is perceived by others...

And once again he makes crap up. I take this stance because I despise tyranny and that which smacks of it and have a large degree of reverence for the system our Founding Fathers put into place to determine guilt in this country as well as to protect the rights of the accused. if that makes me contrary to popular opinion then so be it but i dont take what is popular into consideration one way or another when forming an opinion.

 

[silverbear]

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.

Took me all of 2 minutes to find Appendix C... but I did the logical thing, I went to the table of contents, and found what sounded like the relevant section...

Wow, what a concept, using the table of contents to find what you want in a 250 page document (actually, 204 pages worth of pdf files, why did you feel the need to exaggerate that way??)...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Took me all of 2 minutes to find Appendix C... but I did the logical thing, I went to the table of contents, and found what sounded like the relevant section...

Wow, what a concept, using the table of contents to find what you want in a 250 page document (actually, 204 pages worth of pdf files, why did you feel the need to exaggerate that way??)...

Its really convenient for you to say its so obvious now.

Making claims after the fact is real nice but when i was asking people to put their money where their mouth was and show me where in the CBA the supposed clause was it was strange because all of you that now find it so easily couldnt come up with a damn thing.

Thats what all of you fail to recognize now. I was looking for proof that your claims of the old conduct policy granting the authority and you couldnt provide it. After tearing through the conduct policy and showing that it didnt grant the authority finally Adam brings up the players contract.

once that was mentioned i found it in a matter of minutes. BTW try using the ctrl+f and putting in 'conduct detrimental.' i did and its much faster.

But thats whats so sad. Now all fo you can do is ride Adams coattails as if you actually brought anything to the table. When i was asking for it originally neither of you could demonstrate a thing.

 

[silverbear]

It specifically states "the commisioner issued the decision baseed upon 4 events." So you are trying to say that Jones' counsel sent a letter to the league requesting information to the league but lied? Thats so weak i dont know where to start.

I'm saying that Jones' lawyers are paid to put the best possible spin on all things related to this suspension... I'm also saying that you still haven't provided anything from Goodell, or the league, outlining the reasons for the suspension...

Let's think a bit about that; the REASON we haven't heard from Goodell and/or the league is because such matters are supposed to be CONFIDENTIAL... indeed, the letter you cite was also SUPPOSED to be confidential, yet somehow it leaked to the press... it's a pretty good bet it wasn't leaked from the league office, which logically means that Pac-Man's lawyers themselves leaked it... obviously, if that's the case, they did it to pursue their own agenda... equally obviously, if that's their motive here, then we should be suspicious of the claims they make in that letter...

No, that would involve making garbage up. The contract can stand on its own and is actually an appendix of the CBA.

Once again, you demonstrate a failure to grasp simple concepts, so let me try once again... I'll use easy words, to help you out:

If any team wrote a contract for a player that violated the CBA, that contract would be judged null and void in a court of law... so no, no contract in the NFL can "stand on its own", it has to be in line with the provisions of the CBA...

Show me some logical proof that this is the case or shut up.

You're not really STUPID enough to think I'll do anything other than laugh at your demands that I shut up, are you??

Ive outlined how he could have suspended Pacman without listing pending cases even if you are unable to figure it out. He has a deferred case and two unreported arrest in additon the the pending ones.

Note that I'M the one who's been clubbing you over the head with the facts of his failure to report those arrests as justification for the suspension, right from the start...

And if you acknowledge that those failures by themselves are sufficient justification for suspending him, then your arguments about the other reasons you THINK were given aren't really germane at all, are they?? Even if Goodell did indeed list those as reasons-- and you have no proof that he did-- the failure to report those arrests are CLEAR cause for suspension...

So basically, you have no legitimate complaints about the guy getting suspended, but you still carp on and on and on and on and on...

You're like the Energizer bunny of contrarianism... LOL...

its sad how little you know about what you are trying to argue about.

And yet, I'm schooling you...

Before you babble about something you dont understand, the conduct policy is not actually in the CBA.

I'm guessing you haven't actually read the CBA... specifically, Appendix C, which covers player contracts...

I'd suggest you do so before trying to go down that road again... if you do, you'll read in section 11 (Skill, Performance and Conduct):

if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract

This sentence clearly establishes a code of personal conduct as part of the collective bargaining agreement, the standard for said conduct being the club's reasonable judgement... a bit later on, in section 14 (Rules), we read that:

Player will comply with and be bound by all reasonable Club rules and regulations in effect during the term of this contract which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this contract or of any collective bargaining agreement in existence during the term of this contract

This sentence clearly establishes the CBA as one of the controlling factors in the personal conduct policy...

Next, in section 15 (Integrity of Game), we read that:

Player therefore acknowledges that if he... 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... to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract

What was that about the CBA not spelling out the Commissioner's powers to suspend players, again?? There it is, in black and white, in section 15 of Appendix C of the most recent collective bargaining agreement...

http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Appendix_C_NFL_Player_Contract.pdf

Now, I'll meet you halfway, and agree that the CBA does not spell out exactly how the Player Conduct Policy is defined, that was left up to further negotiations between the Management Council and the NFLPA... but it does clearly establish that there IS a player conduct policy in place, and outlines what would constitute a violation of said policy... go read it for yourself, if you don't believe me...

But really how many times do i have to tell you 'I am not arguing that Goodell was acting outside of his authority' for you finally figure it out. At this point its getting sad. I know youre old and all but geez.

Yes, I realize that you have FINALLY gotten around to conceding that Goodell has the authority to suspend those players for conduct detrimental to the league... and now, I'm pointing out to you that even if you find the reasons Goodell has supposedly given for suspending Pac-Man Jones distasteful, what you think on this subject matters less than nothing...

I'm also pointing out that yours is a minority opinion, as demonstrated by the simple fact you're the only one arguing it... and inasmuch as this new enforcement of the personal conduct policy (there is no new policy, the rules for that are still the same, it's a new emphasis on enforcing those rules that has changed) has been implemented in response to public outcry about lawless behavior by NFL players, until your position is one accepted by a much larger percentage of football fans, the NFL isn't gonna give a rat's patootie about your "elitist" views on this subject...

IOW, you're bellowing your outrage at the top of your lungs, and NOBODY CARES...

You still have yet to figure out what my major premise is so keep on floundering away.

Your newest "major premise", which has changed considerably since you started this argument, is that you think it's wrong for Goodell to levy a suspension on Pac-Man Jones when he's merely ACCUSED of a crime...

And if that really WAS the only reason that Goodell had for suspending Jones, I might even AGREE with you... I wouldn't get up on my high horse about it like you have, but I'd wonder why he didn't just wait for the court cases to play out before suspending him... after all, the trial on the one is supposed to be held before training camp, which would still be plenty of time to suspend the guy...

Then again, Jones' suspension is reportedly a flexible one, and could be either lengthened or shortened as a result of how his court dates come out, so if he is exonerated, and Goodell then shortens his suspension, he will still have done the right thing...

But of course, you distort the reality of the situation when you ignore the OTHER, black and white reasons Goodell had for suspending Pac-Man, reasons that don't need the outcome of a court case... I refer to the two episodes of failing to report his arrests to the league office, as is specifically spelled out in the Player Conduct Policy...

Jones is GUILTY of violating those provisions of the Player Conduct Policy, and as such is legitimately subject to suspension...

Once you've accepted that fundamental truth, the rest of your arguments re: his court situation are completely irrelevant... he was suspended for failing to report his arrests, plain and simple... and Goodell had every right to suspend him for that...

And i actually said i am apathetic as to how you recieve my observation of your failure to grasp simple concepts. if you feel insulted im sorry but it still doesnt mean you dont fail to grasp simple things.

Once again, you ignore that the insult in question was not aimed at me, but at Bobby... beyond that, you have no need to apologize for ever insulting me, inasmuch as your opinion of me means less than nothing to me... I'm merely pointing out that the guy who whined about me engaging in insulting behavior has himself gleefully engaged in such behavior when he felt the urge...

Given that, your complaints about my insults, which were not aimed at anybody specifically, unlike yours, ring quite hypocritical...

It still is proof and it cited the commisioners suspension.

Except you don't know if it cited his suspension ACCURATELY, or if it puts a spin on the reasons designed to make their client look better... you just ASSUME that you're getting the straight story from those lawyers, which is pretty naive of you...

Do you have any evidence to the players disposition in terms of the commisioner suspending people on pending charges? I didnt think so.

In an article dated 4/3/07, AP writer Dave Goldberg wrote:

That seems to be the general consensus around the NFL - that the problems have gone too far.

http://www.rtsports.com/php/nfl05-news-public-story.php?ART=0700012686

"Around the NFL" means owners, management, team officials, league officials and PLAYERS... Joe Theisman weighed in on this issue as well, saying:

I strongly believe this wasn't just Roger Goodell's decision. I believe that he knew that Gene Upshaw (head of the players association) and the players wanted more stringent action taken for this type of behavior.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2832015

But hey, what would Joe know about it, right??

Next up, an article found on Dallas' CBS 11's website:

NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw has expressed his support of a tougher disciplinary policy. That's encouraged Goodell, just seven months into the job, to aggressively attack the subject.

"I've spoken to over 50 players on this issue, and they all believe leadership in mentoring younger players is important," Goodell said. "That's one of the things we'll be encouraging. I'm supportive of creating a player advisory council that would give me some input, maybe even into individual cases."

http://cbs11tv.com/sports/local_story_086103950.html

There's Goodell himself, saying that over 50 players were interviewed about the personal conduct policy... and the head of the NFLPA, the union that represents the players' interests, saying he and his union support that policy...

Continuing in that vein, we have this from the USA Today:

Aiello said no vote is required from owners to adopt the revised policy and that the commissioner has worked hard to create a wide base of support from NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw and president Troy Vincent, as well as owners, head coaches, players, front office executives and even outside experts.

Goodell led a meeting in Indianapolis last month at which some sort of three-strikes-and-you're-out policy was discussed. That meeting included owners, coaches, NFLPA representatives and about a dozen players. The commissioner has made a priority of soliciting opinions on a new conduct policy from a wide range of NFL stakeholders.

So, the Commish has included the input of players, both directly and from their representatives in the NFLPA, in the formulation of his new approach to the Player Conduct Policy... but what comes next in this article is all I need to demonstrate my claim is accurate:

"What's important to him in developing this policy is that it is supported by a wide faction of people in our league, meaning the owners, the players' association, the players and the clubs," Aiello said. "He's been very encouraged by the strong stance that the players have taken in terms of looking for a more effective policy."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-03-22-goodell-policy_N.htm

Now, you don't have to take MY word for it, but are you prepared to blow off what Greg Aiello from the league's office had to say about player support for this new policy??

So, I guess you were WRONG yet again, when you said you "didn't think" that I could come up with "evidence" regarding the player's disposition on this one... frankly, I was surprised to hear you challenge that assertion, it leads me to believe you really haven't studied up on this situation like you should if you're gonna hold yourself out as some kind of expert on the subject...

You dont even discuss the possible harm that it could and has in the past caused

Perhaps that's because I'm more focused on the possible, indeed likely, GOOD it could cause...

I guess you don't think the league has a problem with lawless behavior by its players, eh??

Popular consensus doesnt prove anything.

It does when the league is bowing to the pressure of that public consensus, which is precisely what's occurring here...



Wow this is simply amazing insight here. Your reasoning is just so clear.

Popular opinion is not grounds for an argument and its pretty obvious here that is all you have to stand on.

ROTFLMAO... the league is doing what it's doing precisely because of that "popular opinion"... they are acting to prevent themselves from killing the goose that lays the golden egg, i.e., in recognition that their game's popularity, and thus their profit margin, is rooted firmly in that public opinion...

If you can't even grasp that economic reality, then you're not nearly as smart as you seem desperate for us to believe you are... Goodell isn't acting because he's a goody two shoes who wants all of the league's players to be angels, he's acting out of fear the sponsors will go away if the league gets a negative image in the public's mind...

Youre unable to argue the merits of what i say but you make up crap about everyone disagrees with me. Got any proof?

Only that you don't seem to have any allies in this fight you've picked... but hey, maybe the rest of the board is so intimidated by Bobby and me that they don't DARE sound up to support you...

Yeah, RIIIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTT... but it is true, the only "proof" I have that you stand alone in this argument is the total lack of anything resembling an ally posting in support of your argument...

Now you speak for the league this is great. One thing i really hate about older people especially men is that thye think that they can speak on the behalf of others.

It's called COMMON SENSE... the league depends on the support of its fans to keep the commercial revenue rolling in; if the public turns on their product because they perceive it to sanction lawless behavior, then the sponsors of all those commercials will take their money elsewhere... let's remember, it was precisely that court of public opinion that got Don Imus fired, which is one demonstration of the importance of keeping the public (in this case, the football fan) on your side...

While admitting that I'm not privy to the inside deliberations at the league office, I feel quite confident that this new enforcement of the personal conduct policy is motivated by a desire on the part of the NFL not to start losing sponsors as a result of a negative public image... or if not losing sponsors, then having to give those sponsors deals more favorable to the sponsor, and thus less profitable to the league, to keep them on board...

Again you care to show some proof on this or are you just going to babble?

OK, why do YOU think the league is suddenly cracking down on this behavior?? I've told why I think this is happening, and again, my argument is rooted in both economic reality and good ol' common sense...

Hey if you think that makes you a liar then perhaps you should consider stopping it.

I'm not the one saying I'm a liar, you are... and you're the guy who has disingenuously edited quotes to distort what you actually said, so being called a liar by somebody like that doesn't sting at all...

No matter what my assorted character flaws are-- and you'll recall that I have never once protested your assertion that I'm too fond of slinging insults-- I am one of the more honest individuals you'll ever encounter on these boards... so your attempts to paint me as a liar are quite laughable, and pathetic, all at the same time...

Fact is you are repeatedly making claims without backing it up even remotely

Actually, I have backed up each and every claim you have challenged me to back up... so once again, you're the one being a bit dishonest here, not me...

And im sorry its so difficult to actually respond rationally.

Yeah, you have had a rather severe problem with that, haven't you??

Have any evidence beyond beacuse you say so? Didnt think so.

Clearly, you need to try thinking a little more, because I have clearly outlined the origins of the office of commissioner for a major sport... once again, the first commissioner in ANY sport was Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, appointed commissioner of MLB in the wake of the Black Sox scandal, wherein a number of Chicago White Sox conspired with gangsters to throw the World Series...

That is documented, historical FACT... the first commissioner came about as a direct response to lawless behavior by the professional baseball players of the time...

how about some quotes from the NFL constitution that might help.

What "constitution" would that be??

I have to say, I find it sourly amusing that you rag on your antagonists for not documenting their claims, when you repeatedly invoke the James Lofton suspension back in 1996, but have yet to document what happened back then...

I have tried using both Google and Yahoo to type in the keywords you suggested, and have yet to find anything on the subject... so perhaps it's time you held yourself to the same standards you seem to demand of everybody else, in the interest of intellectual integrity...

If you HAVE an intellectual integrity to call on...

meteing out punishment is certainly part of what he does but he does quite a bit more.

And when did I suggest that doling out punishment was ALL of what Goodell does?? Answer-- never... for that matter, doling out punishment is not all of what an assistant principal does, either...

But in the context of this debate, the only powers that are relevant is the power to suspend players... indeed, your observation that he has other powers is rather silly here, and not responsive to anything we've been discussion... as such, it's yet another non sequitur you've thrown out in a semi-desperate attempt to turn attention away from the fallacies of your arguments...

The potential for harm for him using pending cases as cause for suspensions.

As long as the public in general, the players and the players union support him in this, there is no such potential for harm... especially not when the suspensions he levied against Pac-Man are FLEXIBLE, and can be lessened if he's ultimately exonerated when he does go to trial... of course, there's a flip side to that coin, and the suspensions can be lengthened if he's found guilty...

You say youre not even sure what my position is but now its indefensible.

When did I say I wasn't sure what your position is... I have said that it has changed as time went along-- which it has-- but I'm quite clear on what your specious arguments are...

Do you always make stuff up as you go along?

Said the guy who just put words in my mouth I never said...

READ THIS

Just did, and it is utterly unresponsive to the question you were asked... all it is, is an op-ed piece on a BLOG, by somebody named Rick Karcher...

WOW, what a devastating piece of rebuttal, from one the most famous legal minds in the history of jurisprudence... ROTFLMAO...

And once again the old man thinks he can speak for the 'whole world.'

Tell me, what exactly does my age have to do with any of this?? You have repeatedly tried to insult me by referring to how "old" I am... good thing for me I'm quite happy with being on the cusp of turning 55, so that your pathetic, juvenile attempts to insult me ultimately fail... but once again, it demonstrates that you share my fondness for ad hominem attacks, even as you protest against them...

As for the "whole world" comment, that was obviously a bit of hyperbole... but a bit of hyperbole with an underlying kernel of truth, that truth being that you represent a decidely minority opinion on this issue...

Once again you claim to speak for others how nice. That quote from above was from a panel from Depaul university of law that was asked to look into it by the league. It seems they cared enough to ask their opinion; funny how they never asked for yours.

What quote are you referring to, the one from Rick Karcher, on that blog?? I saw nothing on that page that said it was from a panel from DePaul...

Do be a bit more specific in your claims, and I can do a better job of responding to them...

And once again he makes crap up.

Whassamatta, don't like it when people tell the truth on ya??

I take this stance because I despise tyranny and that which smacks of it and have a large degree of reverence for the system our Founding Fathers put into place to determine guilt in this country as well as to protect the rights of the accused.

Like it or not, a commissioner is a tyrant... like it or not, Pac-Man's suspension has nothing to do with "guilt", and everything to do with "conduct detrimental to the game"... like it or not, the commissioner is charged with dealing with "conduct detrimental to the league"... like it or not, Jones HAS violated the Personal Conduct Policy, twice, by not reporting to the league when he was arrested...

So like it or not, Jones got himself suspended... no matter how long you scream and rail about the injustice of it all, it was both perfectly legal, and perfectly PROPER for him to be suspended...

Pac-Man isn't being sent to jail by Goodell, he's been suspended from his job... employers have the right to do that, and in this case the employers (the Tennessee Titans) have designated that right as the proper province of the Commissioner of the NFL, which is one Roger Goodell...

if that makes me contrary to popular opinion then so be it but i dont take what is popular into consideration one way or another when forming an opinion.

Terrific, I'm happy for you... but it would be nice if you took REALITY into consideration before forming your half-baked "opinions"...

 

[silverbear]

Its really convenient for you to say its so obvious now.

Uhhh, you were still on ignore when you guys first went round and round on this one, so I had no idea what you were arguing...

When I read this thread this evening, and saw the claims you were making, I set out to find out how long it would take me to uncover the relevant portions of the NFLPA...

So I typed in "NFL/NFLPA collective bargaining agreement" in my Yahoo search engine, and either the first or second link took me to a pdf of the actual CBA... the first thing that showed up when I opened the pdf was a table of contents, I looked down it until I found Appendix C, and there were a number of headings that seemed to be relevant, so I clicked on them, and found the quotes provided...

From the time I started my search on Yahoo to the time I left that pdf with the relevant quotes to use in this thread covered no more than 15-20 minutes, tops...

But I'll admit, I am rather good at researching such things... would that you were, too...

Making claims after the fact is real nice but when i was asking people to put their money where their mouth was and show me where in the CBA the supposed clause was it was strange because all of you that now find it so easily couldnt come up with a damn thing.

You do remember that I had you on ignore, not once but twice, don't you?? As it happens, when you were challenging people to put their money where their mouths were, I wasn't reading your posts...

Thats what all of you fail to recognize now. I was looking for proof that your claims of the old conduct policy granting the authority and you couldnt provide it. After tearing through the conduct policy and showing that it didnt grant the authority finally Adam brings up the players contract.

ROTFLMAO... that standard player's contract was an APPENDIX to the CBA... IOW, it was indeed a PART of the CBA...

But thats whats so sad. Now all fo you can do is ride Adams coattails as if you actually brought anything to the table. When i was asking for it originally neither of you could demonstrate a thing.

Well, it's pretty hard to respond to arguments you don't SEE... but I guess you lack the ability to grasp a simple concept like that...

The final question is why exactly did you NEED Adam to point out the truth to you, when it would have taken you mere minutes to look up that truth for yourself??

 

[superpunk]

With such a vague standard, how can you possibly support Goodell 100%?? I'll tell you how... it's because no Cowboys have been punished yet.

"Conduct detrimental" could be anything. There are no lines drawn, except for what the Commish says. You just said getting your name on the police blogger is conduct detrimental.

What else is conduct detrimental? Going to a strip club? That's not illegal... but it could "jeopardize the public's trust in the player." How about getting drunk? Do you have to be arrested for it to be truly "detrimental?" Holding out could be considered conduct detrimental... How about being a jackarse to people? They suspend you for flipping off fans on the field, what about if you get caught doing it off the field?

I hope you get the point... your basic slippery slope argument.

Oh hey....you....you're sneaky.

 

[WoodysGirl]

It specifically states "the commisioner issued the decision baseed upon 4 events."

The letter claimed it, because it was his attorneys' assertion that Goodell based the decision on those four specific events. However, there is nothing reported that Goodell suspended Pacman for any specific event. The blurb I posted said that the events he's been involved in, as a whole, contributed to the decision. I'm not sure how you can read that any other way.

So you are trying to say that Jones' counsel sent a letter to the league requesting information to the league but lied? Thats so weak i dont know where to start.

I think "requesting" is the wrong term, but I think I know what you mean.

I don't know the legal term to use here, but the letter Pacman's attorneys submitted was a petition to be heard by Goodell and the NFL counsel. All it did was include arguments and information which suggested the severity of the suspension was too harsh. It doesn't mean it was factually correct on every point.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The letter claimed it, because it was his attorneys' assertion that Goodell based the decision on those four specific events. However, there is nothing reported that Goodell suspended Pacman for any specific event. The blurb I posted said that the events he's been involved in, as a whole, contributed to the decision. I'm not sure how you can read that any other way.

I think "requesting" is the wrong term, but I think I know what you mean.

I don't know the legal term to use here, but the letter Pacman's attorneys submitted was a petition to be heard by Goodell and the NFL counsel. All it did was include arguments and information which suggested the severity of the suspension was too harsh. It doesn't mean it was factually correct on every point.

Read the letter again. It says specefically Goodells suspension was based on 4 events. So its basically their assertion versus a generalized artticle that you posit that speaks in general terms.

If you choose to believe they are lying then fine I cannot do anything about that but you have no basis for thinking that other than its inconvenient to your position.