FuzzyLumpkins;1530395 said:
And youre not even paid yet you put the absolute worst possible spin on the situation.
Hey, you're the one putting a Pollyanna spin on everything, I'm merely rebutting YOUR specious arguments...
i offer eveidence that shows that it was based on 4 events
Once again, you fail to recognize the difference between EVIDENCE, and SPIN... you give us Jones' lawyer's take on why the Commissioner suspended their client, and of course they're trying to put that suspension in the best possible light for their client...
and the best you can come up with is they might be lying without any reasoning behind it.
Once again, you distort my argument... you know perfectly well what my reasoning was for why they might be lying...
It seems that your definition of "elitism" includes distorting the truth whenever it suits you... how sad, to be so desperate to "win" an online argument that you'd resort to such disingenuous tactics as ignoring arguments made by your opponent, or when you do acknowledge them, distorting them...
Exactly how would it be in Jones' interest to lie like that in a letter to the league office?
It wouldn't-- IF the letter remained confidential, as it was intended to be... but it became a matter of public record, didn't it?? Once it did, it became clear that said letter had dual purposes, one for the league, and one for the general public... it was, in effect, his lawyers trying to make their case in the court of public opinion, IOW a bit of propaganda aimed at swaying the public...
How do you know it was the league office that leaked it? oh wait thats right your just assuming not only that Jones' counsel falsified it which im pretty sure the bar might have an interest in and that they are the ones that leaked it again with no proof.
First, why would the bar be interested in their take on the charges against their client?? It's hardly an evidentiary matter...
Second, what benefit would there be to the league to release that document?? I have outlined how it might be to the benefit of Pac-Man, but honestly can see no reason why it would be advantageous to the league to leak it... particularly if what was said about the reasons for his suspension were the plain truth, it would weaken the commissioner's position... I mean, all those examples of other players screwing up, and not getting as severe a punishment WOULD make it look like the league was pursuing some kind of vendetta against Jones...
So, releasing that letter has no benefits for the league, but it does have benefits for Jones and his lawyers... and those were the only two parties that COULD have released that letter...
Logic suggests that it is FAR more likely that letter was released by Pac-Man's side, not by the league's...
How can you not understand that it can stand on its own and be irrelevant to the CBA?
Gee, I dunno, maybe the fact that it's PART of the CBA?? What you saw was a TYPICAL player's contract, IOW it was offered as guidance as to how a contract should be written under the CBA...
Youre really not stupid enough after all this crap youve made up to try and bolster your position that I wont take anything you say at face value.
Again, you accuse me of lying, but to date you have yet to demonstrate even ONE lie on my part... which makes your repeated claims a lie, doesn't it??
Unlike you, I don't care to win a stupid online argument if I have to resort to lying to get the "win"...
KK at this point im really beginning to be concerned about your intelligence. How many times does it take for me to tell you that I know it is completely within his power but I still feel he is acting irresponsibly' for you to finally figure it out?
Maybe if you quit making such a big deal out of Goodell's allegedly listing arrests without convictions as part of his reason for suspending Jones, people might start to believe that you're not arguing that he had no right to suspend him... but you keep on repeating that same tired, discredited argument...
And how exactly is it irresponsible of Goodell to suspend Jones when he CLEARLY violated the Personal Conduct Policy TWICE, by failing to report his arrests?? You keep on harping about those arrests without conviction, and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the REAL, clearly VALID reasons for his suspension...
Well you are the energizer bunny of cluelessness. I think his policy of suspending players on pending cases is irresponsible even if it is within his power.
If he's acting "within his power", then by definition what he's doing is not "irresponsible"... the NFLPA and the Management Council GAVE him his powers, and defined what would qualify as valid reasons for suspension...
Here's another way of looking at it, sonny-- if his actions really WERE irresponsible, why did Pac-Man's lawyers DROP THE APPEAL??
This whole conversation wouldnt require so much time if would finally figure that out.
Is somebody forcing you to respond??
This from the guy that still has yet to figure out what I am saying. You seem to think Im arguing Goodell doesnt have the authority to do this even despite being told this is not the case for quite some time.
No, you're arguing he doesn't have the RIGHT to do this, which you say is a different thing from having the authority to do it... and I'm saying if he has the authority to do it, then he also has the right to do it... a right that was GIVEN to him, both by management and by the players... THEY decided it was in their best, long-term interests to give him that power...
So if all the parties involved have agreed that it's RIGHT to give the Commissioner such all-reaching powers, who are YOU to now come along and say it isn't right?? YOUR interests are not at stake here, THEIRS are...
I reiterate the conduct policy itself is not in the CBA.
You're right, and you're wrong... you're wrong because the principle of a player conduct policy IS included in the CBA, in the relevant passages that I showed you... but you're right if your argument is that the SPECIFICS of the conduct policy are not spelled out the way they are in this latest "revision" of the policy...
But I said all along that those specifics were negotiated in subsequent meetings after the CBA was signed, didn't I??
It actually brings up an interesting point. The old conduct policy denoted a way of handling violations ie waiting on a conviction that is at odds with the powers granted in the CBA.
Did it?? Kindly link me to the old conduct policy, and the passage that "denoted a way of handling violations"...
I ask because you have repeatedly distorted my arguments, and I don't put it past you to distort what the old conduct policy said... so you made the claim, now PROVE IT...
its not my fault the your so obtuse it took you up until now to figure it out when ive been saying it in plain english for days.
Hey, maybe if your "plain english" was a little less garbled, it would help... LOL...
And what you have to think has any more weight? its my opinion that he is irresponsible toa ct in the manne rthat he does and he should look at the history of his predecessors to see why.
And it's my opinion that both labor and management GAVE him the authority to act in that manner, because they WANTED him to act in that manner, in order to address what they see as a serious problem for the game... given that, there is nothing whatsoever "irresponsible" in his actions...
Which is reflected in the fact that very few people are up in arms like you are over this... one would hope that if Goodell really did something irresponsible, most folks would stand up in opposition to it...
i will speak out about it if i want to and if you dont like it then youre just going to have to deal with it.
Ooooooh, touchy... are we feeling a bit defensive these days, sonny boy??
When exactly have I even hinted that you shouldn't speak out about anything you wish?? YOU'VE told me that I should shut up (which amused me greatly), but I don't recall doing anything ove the sort to you...
Im just waiting for you to start arguing that suspensions on allegations is a good thing.
Pac-Man was suspended for perfectly legitimate reasons, even by YOUR standards...
Everything that i have read that specifically talks about the issue of suspending before conviction in a court of law has been in a negative light.
You mean like that blog you quoted??
Im sure you are going to start posting a bunch of crap about how the players are behind getting something done that dont even mention that caveat.
I'll simply post that the conduct policy was written by lawyers for both the Management Council and the NFLPA, and those boys tend to be REAL careful with their semantics... so if they decided that "conduct detrimental to the league" was sufficient justification, if they decided that they did not need to require convictions, then I'm gonna assume they meant to write it just that way...
Especially since I don't see players coming forward now to join you in saying "this ain't right"...
Wow the old man speaking for others again.
Nope, I'm merely noting-- once again-- that you're a lone voice in the wilderness, crying out your dismay... one assumes that if anybody else cared, they'd be chipping in with their two cents' worth... especially if they cared as much as you apparently do, LOL...
Of course it's changed, and it's quite outrageous of you to say it hasn't... at first, you were clearly arguing he didn't have the AUTHORITY to suspend Jones, which eventually you were forced to concede was wrong... which then led you to a slightly different argument, that he didn't have the RIGHT to suspend the guy...
your just too obtuse to have figured it out until i beat you over the head with the most simplistic terms for a day or two.
Again, if you wish to portray yourself as ANYBODY'S intellectual superior, you really need to work on your writing... BTW, is "obtuse" your word for the day??
i did wonder why he didnt wait
Uhhh, where did I say you didn't?? For somebody who goes on and on and on about "reading comprehension", you sure don't practice what you preach...
you just didnt pick up on it
Actually, I just focused on the fallacy of your argument, in particular the part about having completely legitimate reasons for suspending Pac-Man, reasons even you can't dispute-- failing to report two arrests...
With those legitimate reasons, the validity of the other reasons doesn't matter at all, at all...
its deliberate and irresponsible.
It's not irresponsible, it was his MANDATE... so if anybody was irresponsbile in all this, it was the players and the owners, who GAVE him that mandate... but they have a vested interest in this matter, and you don't, so I give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they had perfectly good reasons for giving Goodell that authority...
He was given terms and if he meets those terms then its shortened. thats not flexible
Of course it is-- if you do A, you get result B... if you do C, you get result D... if you do E, you get result F... if you get cleared in the courts, then your suspension is shortened... if you get convicted in the courts, then you get a lengthier suspension...
You have OPTIONS, which means you have FLEXIBILITY...
i didnt ignore them i actually brought them up several times. You are going back to the old authority argument.
That's because as long as he's acting within his authority, he's not being irresponsible... as Commissioner, his "responsibility" is to use his powers as they have been granted to him... it would be irresponsible of him NOT to use his powers as they were intended (by the players and owners) to be used...
Goodell can suspend as he sees fit for whatever reason.
No, he can't... his reasons have to fall within the Player Conduct Policy... to say he can suspend as he sees fit for whatever reason is to say he could suspend Spencer because he doesn't like his Mohawk...
He still listed a pending case which establishes a disturbing precedent on Goodells first major action as commsioner.
Disturbing to you, perhaps, but I don't see a whole lot of folks getting upset about it...
What part of "conduct detrimental to the league" don't you understand?? Ten arrests in a very short time IS conduct detrimental to the league...
Your obtuseness is getting really boring.
Ahhhh, another insult... seems whenever you have nothing of substance to say, you fall back on ad hominem...
How fortunate you are that this board has rules, and I'm determined to abide by them, even if you're not... please believe me when I say that just as I'm schooling you on the facts here, I'd also school you in a flame war... I've been playing that game for a loooong time now, on other boards, and am in fact semi-legendary for it...
You called people on this board flaccid male members and I described my distaste.
No, I called them FOOLS... that Yiddish word has a number of different connotations... anybody reading the context in which I used the word would have understood which connotation I was using... but apparently, your grasp of the English (and Hebrew) language is shaky at best...
And BTW, I named no names when I called them fools... I did not get personal, and the only way anybody could have been offended is if they saw themselves in my criticism...
Apparently, you saw yourself...
The mods deleted your diatribe BTW.
Yeah, you pointed that out earlier, as if that proved anything... the truth is, I wondered why they did so, and none of them contacted me to explain it, but in the final analysis, it ain't no big deal...
And again Im sorry that pointing out your actions or failures is insulting to you. It funny you dont deny them though.
Wrong again-- when you called me out for being insulting, I freely admitted I was guilty... when you called me a liar, I promptly challenged you to document even ONE lie...
To date, you have failed to come up with one...
Yeah its pretty naive to me that I dont think jones counsel lied in that letter seeing that both the league and the bar would have issues with it.
Why do you think either one of them would care??
Beyond that please explain how listing those offenses if they were not actually listed as cause would bolster Jones' position.
You are aware that the letter went on to list literally hundreds of transgressions by players, demanding to know how they were punished, don't you?? His lawyers were trying to make the case that Jones was being punished far more severely than other players had been for lesser offenses...
Which he is, of course... but the league clearly announced when they instituted this new Conduct Policy that the penalties would be more severe than ever before, which is why his lawyers ultimately dropped the appeal... there is nothing either morally or legally wrong with deciding to put more teeth into your enforcement policy... especially not when the old enforcement policies were clearly not working, were not providing any form of deterrence...
This says the problem has gone to far and that they are looking for action but im failing to see the part where it says the players are okay with allegations being subject to suspensions.
It says the players support the new Personal Conduct Policy... in that policy, allegations ARE subject to suspensions, so it logically follows that they support it...
Now, maybe it's possible that you're arguing that the players were too stupid to foresee that the policy could be implemented that way... that's insulting to the players, but let's play Devil's Advocate, and say that's the case here... in that case, one would expect an outcry from the players, saying they didn't mean for Goodell to go down that road...
Have you seen any such outcry, sonny??
Wow a bunch of quotes from before the suspensions being handed down and again nothing that talks about suspending based on allegations. You didnt show anything other than the players wanted something done.
And do you have anything to show that the players are upset at what IS being done??
Absent such evidence, your argument falls apart... the players don't seem to be upset that allegations are being used as justification for suspending players, do they??
Well seeing that the average NFL players is half as likely as the average american to get arrested and that the incidents of violent crimes by NFL players has actually dropped
I'd like to see the statistics supporting that claim, please...
then i would say the league has a problem with propaganda by the media and less of a problem with what the players are actually doing.
Golly gee, then why are the players sitting still for this?? Why aren't they all up in arms, bellowing their rage for every microphone and camera they can find?? Why are they letting themselves be SCAPEGOATED this way, when as a whole they're more law-abiding than the average American??
The evidence actually shows the league growing at a higher rate then ever. There is no evidence to support that league revenues are dipping because of players activity off the field.
Not yet... but you're incredibly naive if you don't believe that fear of that happening is what's driving all this...
And again youre speaking on the behalf of others.
Well, at the very least I'm assuming Goodell's motives are what I say they are... so why do YOU think he's cracking down now??
Its a trend and i doesnt mean feces.
You "doesn't"?? ROTFLMAO...
Why exaclty do i need allies
Absent others who feel the same way, you're just Don Quixote, tilting at windmills...
And notice how noone is coming in ehre and supporting you either?
Perhaps they feel that I don't need any help dealing with the likes of you...
And commercial revenue was increasin before the suspensions. look at the leagues policy towards end zone celebrations. the fans dont seem to like that policy and the term No Fun League gets tossed about. once again youre speaking on behalf of the leagues accountatnts and CFO as if you know anything.
Again, the response is obvious-- if there was no problem here, why the need for a new Personal Conduct Policy?? Why would the players agree to such a new policy??
this still doesnt address the point that its irresponsible to suspend players based on allegations especially when there is no need to.
I've already addressed that point, quite simply, quite directly:
If Goodell is acting with the limits of his authority, if has actions are responsive to the mandate given him by the players and the owners, then his actions cannot be "irresponsible"...
No you dont know whats going on in league circles so your assertion ahs no basis. The salary cap keeps goingup which means the league keeps making more money.
Then once again, your challenge is to outline why you think the NFL put a new Personal Conduct Policy in place, and is now setting about enforcing it... there has to be a REASON why they're doing this, and a REASON why the players willingly agreed to make themselves subject to such a policy...
Your economics have no basis in reality. Show some evidence that league revenues are decreasing.
Once again, your reading comprehension has done you in... I never said that revenues WERE decreasing, I said they were AT RISK of decreasing, if the public gets the perception that the league is tolerant of criminal behavior...
We have seen evidence, quite recently, of how negative public opinion can drive off sponsors... the name Don Imus mean anything to you?? The league is clearly anxious to fend off such a possibility...
i didnt call you a liar im saying you make stuff up
Once again, you engage in PATHETIC semantic tapdancing, in order to avoid taking the blame for your own actions... somebody who "makes stuff up" is a liar...
Just like when you said Bobby couldn't grasp simple concepts, then tried to protest that you weren't calling him stupid...
how about player support for suspensions on allegations i dont see that.
I have shown you player support for the Player Conduct Policy, which contains provisions for suspensions based on "conduct detrimental to the league"... what I haven't seen is even ONE player expressing opposition to the suspensions in question... even Pac-Man himself has ultimately decided that his suspension was legit, and has dropped his appeal...
Which leaves YOU the only one protesting the whole matter, LOL...
how about economic figures for your economic reality? How about me taking a position just to be contrary?
Youve vaguely talked about baseballs first commisioner a century ago
88 years ago, actually... as for my being "vague", I cited Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, pointed out that he was the first-ever commissioner of any major sport, and gave you the specific reasons why he was hired-- the Black Sox scandal of 1919, wherein 8 players conspired with gamblers to "fix" the outcome of the World Series...
What's "vague" about that?? How many more specifics do you require??
but you havent shown anything about the commsioner of the NFL in 2007.
The point was to demonstrate that from the creation of the first commissioner of a major sports league, one of the main thrusts of that job was to enforce discipline... I'm unsurprised that said point went right over your obviously overtaxed cranium...
Thats funny cause i was able to and i was nice enough to link it for you.
Gee, I must have missed your link to that, could you kindly repost it?? I ask because I know you have a point you're trying to make, but I can't remember the Lofton situation, and need to see what it involved before I can hope to a) know what you're talking about, and b) determine for myself if you have a valid point...
No but you stated that he was compelled to act and also compared him to a vice principal.
He was compelled to act, and inasmuch as a big part of his duties are enforcing the rules of the NFL, he is rather like a vice principal, who also deals with such matters at his school...
Actually youre teh one that brought up the origins of the commisioner and what powers he has and why not me.
Except I limited my discussion to the powers he has that are relevant to the argument we're having...
If he suspends someone based on an allegation and then the allegation is disproven there is harm even if you think its alright.
Get back to me when that happens, and we can both examine the public outcry of protest...
No it hasnt changed. You misinterpreted what i was saying fromt he get go. ive been talking about suspending on allegations being irresponsible from the get go.
No you haven't, and no matter how many times you repeat that garbage, it STILL won't be true... your original argument was that he didn't have the AUTHORITY to suspend based on allegations, a position you clung to stubbornly until AdamJT13 came along and proved to you that you were wrong...
It was only THEN that you switched your argument to a moral one, rather than a legal one...
You thought iw as talking about authority until this post.
Actually, I'm pointing out that as long as he's acting within his authority, then he is within his moral right to do what he chooses... the fact that he was GIVEN that authority is a signal that the players and owners WANT him to crack down, even on "allegations"...
So does the fact that there has not been a player uprising in opposition to what he's done... by now, there's been plenty of time for such an uprising to manifest itself... apparently, the players themselves don't think they're being abused by this new player conduct policy, even if you do...
Its based on my personal observation of older men who try to speak on the behalf of everyone to try and bolster their position. You guys do it all the time as if it means anything.
It's based on your festering anger towards me for making you look foolish, and nothing else...
Find me one player that says its okay to suspend someone on allegation not the genrealized before the fact garbage youve been touting.
Find me one player who has protested what Goodell has done...
Find me where someone says its acceptable much less good for the commisioner to suspend on the basis of an allegation.
The absence of any protest of what Goodell has done is tacit approval of his actions...
The Titans dont designate anything. Nice job of continiuing to make crap up.
When the Titans signed on to the Player Conduct Policy, they agreed to let Goodell be the judge and jury... this is their "designating" him to handle these issues... so once again, you're reduced to pitiful semantic games...
And Im not talking about authority im talking about responsibility. You not once have addressed this.
Yes, I have-- repeatedly... but once more, just for you:
As long as Goodell is acting within his authority, then he's acting responsibly... if you have issues with anybody acting irresponsibly in this, it would appear that it's with the owners and the players for giving them that authority in the first place...
And given that they have a vested interest in all of this, but YOU don't, then if they judged it appropriate to give Goodell that authority, who are you to now come along and tell them they were wrong to do so??
In this case, "authority" and "responsibility" go hand in hand... you simply cannot separate the two...
YOU USED NORMAN EINSTEIN AS A SOURCE. Thats just rich. This is the guy that criticized Quinn because of his tie know. Youre right Theismann doesnt know jack.
