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

[BrAinPaiNt]

That doesn't mean the players haven't been opened up to more extortion attempts because of recent developments. That's what's being said above.

They have been open to extortion attempts for YEARS. So a few more happen now.

If the league looks into it and feels it is an extortion situation I am sure they will not press forward with punishment.

 

[superpunk]

They have been open to extortion attempts for YEARS. So a few more happen now.

Easy to brush off when it's happening to someone else.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Easy to brush off when it's happening to someone else.

Seems it is just as easy to complain about it when it is happening to someone else.

I am sorry the Commish makes you angry and you feel that the leader of a group should not be able to command a certain standard for his employees.

I think over the last few weeks I have heard, from multiple people, every excuse in the book to let the players off and not hold them accountable for their actions.

 

[superpunk]

Seems it is just as easy to complain about it when it is happening to someone else.

I am sorry the Commish makes you angry and you feel that the leader of a group should not be able to command a certain standard for his employees.

It's clear you don't get it, either.

I would love for the commissioner to establish a standard. And that's really all there is to say about that.

I think over the last few weeks I have heard, from multiple people, every excuse in the book to let the players off and not hold them accountable for their actions.

christ....

 

[Doomsday101]

They have been open to extortion attempts for YEARS. So a few more happen now.

If the league looks into it and feels it is an extortion situation I am sure they will not press forward with punishment.

I agree people have been accusing others or wrong doing to profit for a long time well before Goodell was in charge. Goodell was not the commish when Irvin and Williams were accused. So far Goodell has not suspended anyone from pure accusation.

 

[WoodysGirl]

It's clear you don't get it, either.

I would love for the commissioner to establish a standard. And that's really all there is to say about that.



christ....

Maybe his actions are, in effect, establishing a standard. A high one, which will make future offenders think he is taking it easy on them. Fines have shown to be ineffective, suspending them from games may.

 

[Vintage]

It's clear you don't get it, either.

I would love for the commissioner to establish a standard. And that's really all there is to say about that.



christ....

Its like a plague that keeps spreading.....

 

[Doomsday101]

One thing that gets thrown around is the NFL using the same prove that is seen in criminal law and that is not the case just as civil court does not require burden of prove that is seen in the criminal courts. OJ was found not guilty in his criminal case but lost the civil where the burden of prove is much less than that of a criminal case.

 

[superpunk]

Maybe his actions are, in effect, establishing a standard. A high one, which will make future offenders think he is taking it easy on them. Fines have shown to be ineffective, suspending them from games may.

The standard he's set so far is - I can do whatever the hell I feel like to you - with no rationale, no regard for precedent and you'll just have to deal with it.

If Michael Irvin had still been a player in the league last summer - with his history - and then been caught with a crack-pipe and been accused of assaulting his gardener, I wonder how we'd feel when heavy-handed Goodell and his disregard for having a distinctly outlined code of conduct and punishment rained down on Michael.

I think I'd be more than a little upset.

That doesn't change just because it's some other team's players whose alleged actions I find reprehensible.

 

[Crown Royal]

Last week I was driving my buggy down the road for a barn raisin, when Fritz Pollard and Walter Camp came outta nowhere and hit me with canes.

 

[sacase]

You're kidding right? Last week there was a story about a woman in her 80's trying to extort money from Bart Starr. She threatened to go public with an affair they didn't have if he didn't pay her.

Ever heard of Khalid Reeves? When he was an 18 year old basketball player here at the University of Arizona a woman who was 25 accused him of rape. Khalid's name got splashed all over the papers, she got to be anonymous. I used to coach with a man who sent 2 sons to the NFL for brief careers. I know him and his family quite well. His wife worked in the Adminstration department for the UA. This young woman had gone to them and said if she wasn't paid 50k and given free tuition and books for life she was going to bring down the Basketball program. She was turned down and went right to the police with rape charges. Her charges got dropped when no less than 7 of the players came forward to say they had been with her and she likes things freaky. An 18 year old kid got his name smeared forever.

That isn't even extraordinary. Ask anyone on this site who played a college sport. Coaches warn you about these activities all the time. There are women out there trying to get pregnant by an athlete so that they are set for life.

Charles Barkley was cleared of charges stemming from a fight after it was revealed that the man he fought told people he was going to start the fight so he could collect some cash. Barkley refused to pay, the man sued, and lost. Barkley paid more money for his defense than the man asked for as shut up money. To him that wasn't the point.

The point is, Goodell has facilitated anything. This mindset has always been there. You can't even call it a new twist to an old scam until you know Henry and McNeal are innocent.

I am not saying they haven't happend before, the would be stupid to say. All I am saying is that suspending players before they have had their day in court just increases the amount of extortion attempts made against these guys.

 

[WoodysGirl]

The standard he's set so far is - I can do whatever the hell I feel like to you - with no rationale, no regard for precedent and you'll just have to deal with it.

A precedent that was established by other Commisioners doesn't necessarily have to be followed by the next one, even though the prior commissioners had the same authority as the current one.

While you're right in that Goodell isn't following precedent, do you not think Pacman's well-publicized stuff set precedent? Was Chris Henry's? Was Tanks? In my mind, Goodell had to bring the hammer down because they had done so much that garnered negative publicity in such a short period of time.

Going forward, these players know that the Commish won't hesitate to sit them down for a game if their off-field incident warrants it.

If Michael Irvin had still been a player in the league last summer - with his history - and then been caught with a crack-pipe and been accused of assaulting his gardener, I wonder how we'd feel when heavy-handed Goodell and his disregard for having a distinctly outlined code of conduct and punishment rained down on Michael.

I think I'd be more than a little upset.

That doesn't change just because it's some other team's players whose alleged actions I find reprehensible.

I was upset with Irvin and the suspension he got. Irvin's actions warranted discipline and while I might be upset at the length, I would also look at the things he did to even get suspended.

I understand your position. You'd rather that there was something in writing that distinctly outline what discipline a player should get according to what offense. That's a matter that should've been brought up by the NFLPA. They dropped the ball. The next time they go back to the table to tweak the CBA, that's something they need to try and revise.

 

[joseephuss]

I am not saying they haven't happend before, the would be stupid to say. All I am saying is that suspending players before they have had their day in court just increases the amount of extortion attempts made against these guys.

Chris Henry had his day in court. That is why he was suspended 8 games.

Tank Johnson had his day in court. That is why he was suspended 8 games.

Pacman broke league rules by not reporting two arrests. That is why he was suspended 10 games. The 10 game can turn into 16 or more after he does have his day in court on a couple of other issues.

Which guy was suspended before they had their day in court?

 

[Stash]

For me, one (of many) of the great injustices in the world is the lack of consequences placed on those making false accusations.

The penalties need to be much stiffer than they are now.

Too mant times, someone levels false accusations which are proven false, and then they walk away with not so much as a slap on the wrist.

Those entertaining the thought of ruining someone's life or reputation in a cash-grab scheme need to have fear of reprecussions which they currently don't have.

 

[Doomsday101]

For me, one (of many) of the great injustices in the world is the lack of consequences placed on those making false accusations.

The penalties need to be much stiffer than they are now.

Too mant times, someone levels false accusations which are proven false, and then they walk away with not so much as a slap on the wrist.

Those entertaining the thought of ruining someone's life or reputation in a cash-grab scheme need to have fear of reprecussions which they currently don't have.

I agree. People get this ideal that they can accuse others of wrong doing for profit and walk away if they lose with little consequence. I think the penalty should be much stronger .

 

[joseephuss]

A precedent that was established by other Commisioners doesn't necessarily have to be followed by the next one, even though the prior commissioners had the same authority as the current one.

While you're right in that Goodell isn't following precedent, do you not think Pacman's well-publicized stuff set precedent? Was Chris Henry's? Was Tanks? In my mind, Goodell had to bring the hammer down because they had done so much that garnered negative publicity in such a short period of time.

Going forward, these players know that the Commish won't hesitate to sit them down for a game if their off-field incident warrants it.

I was upset with Irvin and the suspension he got. Irvin's actions warranted discipline and while I might be upset at the length, I would also look at the things he did to even get suspended.

I understand your position. You'd rather that there was something in writing that distinctly outline what discipline a player should get according to what offense. That's a matter that should've been brought up by the NFLPA. They dropped the ball. The next time they go back to the table to tweak the CBA, that's something they need to try and revise.

It will be difficult to set outlines for these type of things. It really seems like it will be a case by case scenario. Henry and Pacman are the extreme cases. Not many previous NFL players and I doubt future players will face the multiple troubles that these two guys have gone through.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

The standard he's set so far is - I can do whatever the hell I feel like to you - with no rationale, no regard for precedent and you'll just have to deal with it.

See it is very funny to see you have so much sarcasm for those you feel are not getting you, exaggerating stances or whatever method you use to justify your actions.

Yet you are just as guilty of it.

You say he is using no rationale. Exaggeration
I am sure he has a very good rationale that was not only set forward by owners but also many of the players themselves. They want the league cleaned up.

No regard for Precedent. Exaggeration.

I take it you missed the adam/fuzzy thread where it was shown that they had the ability to do this stuff before. The only thing different now is that they are going to act on it with stiffer penalties.
So they have the authority but just were not making the suspensions as long. But there comes a time in most businesses that if you have a current suspension system in place that does not seem to curtail bad behavior. Where your very own employees come to you and ask for you to help clean up the business that the logical step is to increase the suspensions and punishments.

Not really too hard to figure out here.

If Michael Irvin had still been a player in the league last summer - with his history - and then been caught with a crack-pipe and been accused of assaulting his gardener, I wonder how we'd feel when heavy-handed Goodell and his disregard for having a distinctly outlined code of conduct and punishment rained down on Michael.

I think I'd be more than a little upset.

That doesn't change just because it's some other team's players whose alleged actions I find reprehensible.

If the league offices hired investigators and they came to the conclusion that Mike was in the wrong from their evidence so be it. I may not like it but I am not going to whine about it either.

THAT is the part I don't think you get with your high horse attitude with anyone that does not agree with your takes. The league will do an investigation and will not just read an article or see a news clip and just suspend the player.

The player will have due process within the NFL even if that Due process is independent of a legal version.

The player is investigated, the player can meet with the Commish to state his case and the player has the right to appeal a decision.

From your stance I get the impression you are trying to pass it off like Goodell is Ceasar sitting in the stands at a gladiator match and all he has to do is give a thumbs up or down.

This is far from what is happening. There are processes involved and not just a knee jerk reaction.

Plus as I stated before, it appears that the previous length of suspensions have not been working with these players so maybe it is indeed time to up the ante. You know it is pretty bad when the players themselves are asking for it to make it better.

Finally...just because I don't agree with your stance and due to your last reaction I figured I would be petty and throw in a ....

jebus!!??oh noes!!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seems it is just as easy to complain about it when it is happening to someone else.

I am sorry the Commish makes you angry and you feel that the leader of a group should not be able to command a certain standard for his employees.

I think over the last few weeks I have heard, from multiple people, every excuse in the book to let the players off and not hold them accountable for their actions.

Sorry this is just not true. i have yet one person say that the playes should not be held accountable for criminal activity. What i do see is people saying Goodell should not be the one to determine what is criminal.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

See it is very funny to see you have so much sarcasm for those you feel are not getting you, exaggerating stances or whatever method you use to justify your actions.

Yet you are just as guilty of it.

You say he is using no rationale. Exaggeration
I am sure he has a very good rationale that was not only set forward by owners but also many of the players themselves. They want the league cleaned up.

No regard for Precedent. Exaggeration.

I take it you missed the adam/fuzzy thread where it was shown that they had the ability to do this stuff before. The only thing different now is that they are going to act on it with stiffer penalties.
So they have the authority but just were not making the suspensions as long. But there comes a time in most businesses that if you have a current suspension system in place that does not seem to curtail bad behavior. Where your very own employees come to you and ask for you to help clean up the business that the logical step is to increase the suspensions and punishments.

Not really too hard to figure out here.




If the league offices hired investigators and they came to the conclusion that Mike was in the wrong from their evidence so be it. I may not like it but I am not going to whine about it either.

THAT is the part I don't think you get with your high horse attitude with anyone that does not agree with your takes. The league will do an investigation and will not just read an article or see a news clip and just suspend the player.

The player will have due process within the NFL even if that Due process is independent of a legal version.

The player is investigated, the player can meet with the Commish to state his case and the player has the right to appeal a decision.

From your stance I get the impression you are trying to pass it off like Goodell is Ceasar sitting in the stands at a gladiator match and all he has to do is give a thumbs up or down.

This is far from what is happening. There are processes involved and not just a knee jerk reaction.

Plus as I stated before, it appears that the previous length of suspensions have not been working with these players so maybe it is indeed time to up the ante. You know it is pretty bad when the players themselves are asking for it to make it better.

Finally...just because I don't agree with your stance and due to your last reaction I figured I would be petty and throw in a ....

jebus!!??oh noes!!

James Lofton 1996 Whoopsies.

 

[superpunk]

A precedent that was established by other Commisioners doesn't necessarily have to be followed by the next one, even though the prior commissioners had the same authority as the current one.

While you're right in that Goodell isn't following precedent, do you not think Pacman's well-publicized stuff set precedent? Was Chris Henry's? Was Tanks? In my mind, Goodell had to bring the hammer down because they had done so much that garnered negative publicity in such a short period of time.

I don't even think he's following his own precedent. But I've been into that ad nauseum...

I was upset with Irvin and the suspension he got. Irvin's actions warranted discipline and while I might be upset at the length, I would also look at the things he did to even get suspended.

What about his actions that didn't deserve discipline? The false accusations brought forward by that ***** against him and Big E? That was a way bigger deal than Pac-Man. I have a feeling they'd have faced some hardcore suspensions, for something that never happened. The tramp that accused Duke's players? The moron that accused Kobe and dropped it? That's getting prevalent, and we've got a nasty precedent being set for these situations now.

I understand your position. You'd rather that there was something in writing that distinctly outline what discipline a player should get according to what offense. That's a matter that should've been brought up by the NFLPA. They dropped the ball. The next time they go back to the table to tweak the CBA, that's something they need to try and revise.

Well put. (Thanks for understanding)

But I don't think that excuses Goodell from acting a dictator and being free from rhyme or reason in severity of punishment.