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

[joseephuss]

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.

Goodell is not the one determining what is criminal. Where did you get that? Was it Goodell who determined that Tank Johnson broke the law? No.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

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.

Your definition of accountable and let them off and mine are different.

Giving a guy like pacman, a multiple offender, a 4 game suspension to me is letting him off and not holding him accountable for his actions.

Giving him most of, if not all, of the season off IS holding him accountable for his actions and not letting him off.

 

[joseephuss]

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

What rhyme and reason are you talking about? There have been 3 players that have fallen under these suspensions, Henry, Pacman and Tank. The suspensions seem pretty consistent. If anything there is just not enough data to see any type of pattern of consistency or inconsistency.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

I agree, even the courts do not use 1 punishment for the same crime. There is range the courts have where a guy could get 5 to 10 years so just because this guy got 5 years for his crime does not mean the next guy could get more time for the same offense it is at the discretion of the courts. In the NFL the commissioner does have discretion on the length of the punishment

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

No but he can determine conduct that is detrimental to the league. He is not the court of law but his office gives him powers that allows punishment for acts that the league feels is detrimental to the league.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your definition of accountable and let them off and mine are different.

Giving a guy like pacman, a multiple offender, a 4 game suspension to me is letting him off and not holding him accountable for his actions.

Giving him most of, if not all, of the season off IS holding him accountable for his actions and not letting him off.

I personally dont care about the lengths of the suspensions; my main concern is judge goodells process for determining guilt.

Its the process that is coming into question not the result. I think if punk had any idea how he came to the 1 year number other than pulling a number out of a hat he would be fine with it but the suspensions handed out so far have been inconsistent.

 

[superpunk]

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.

He is not consistent within his own punishments.

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.

Have I ever claimed he is not within his rights and abilities as commissioner in meting out these punishments?

Hardly.

That doesn't mean there aren't issues with the way he's excercising those rights.

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.

Don't exagerate.

I have no problem with disagreements.

I take offense when people show that they lack the ability to differentiate between disagreeing with Goodell's handling of the situation, and supporting Pac-Man Jones.

The "you're either with us, or you're against us" bull doesn't really have a place.

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!!

Fair enough. Maybe you weren't referring to me - but I've not seen anyone making excuses to "let PacMan off the hook." What I have seen is alot of jumping to conclusions, and putting words in people's mouths that don't belong. Instead of continuing to explain that a complaint against Goodell is NOT a voice FOR Jones - I'll take to sarcasm. Because there's really no point in explaining it anymore.

 

[joseephuss]

No but he can determine conduct that is detrimental to the league. He is not the court of law but his office gives him powers that allows punishment for acts that the league feels is detrimental to the league.

And some of the conduct detrimental to the league is clearly defined. The NFLPA has accepted those rules and powers for some time.

 

[IndianaCowboyFan]

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.

Maybe the answer to this would be to set up an NFL Player Defense Fund where everyone contributes a small amount and creates a huge fund to hire a team of lawyers to make an example of those making false accusations. It would only take a couple of people making false accusations losing everything to make people think about making those false accusations.

 

[WoodysGirl]

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.

And neither of those players were disciplined by their respective oversight agencies. Kobe became a folk here of sorts for being able to be in court in the morning and play a game at night.

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.

I've always understood your position, but I also respect and understand Goodell's actions, as well. I look at it as if he had to come down hard on those guys. Otherwise, they just weren't going to get it.

Going forward, I think any discipline handed out will be much more measured. And we'll find that out depending on what he does to discipline Joey Porter and Frostee Rucker. Those are the next two yahoos heading to NY.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No but he can determine conduct that is detrimental to the league. He is not the court of law but his office gives him powers that allows punishment for acts that the league feels is detrimental to the league.

and for the majority conduct detrimental is criminal in nature. hes not suspending these guys cause they are badmouthing the refs to the press. lets get real.

in the case of jones and henry specifically he determined that they were guilty of what they were accused of before a court of law did.

look up james lofton in 1996 and youll see why tagliabue never did this nonsense goodell is prone to do.

 

[Doomsday101]

I personally dont care about the lengths of the suspensions; my main concern is judge goodells process for determining guilt.

Its the process that is coming into question not the result. I think if punk had any idea how he came to the 1 year number other than pulling a number out of a hat he would be fine with it but the suspensions handed out so far have been inconsistent.

Well the precedence has been set and even Pacman has walked away from the appeal. As for Goodell he does not have to have the same burden of prove that a criminal courts uses just as the burden of prove in a civil case is much less than that of a criminal case.

 

[superpunk]

What rhyme and reason are you talking about? There have been 3 players that have fallen under these suspensions, Henry, Pacman and Tank. The suspensions seem pretty consistent. If anything there is just not enough data to see any type of pattern of consistency or inconsistency.

Is he punishing them on the most recent incidents alone, or based on a pattern?

If it's on these incidents alone, why does Pac-Man's garner worse punishment?

If it's on a pattern, what sense does it make to brashly suspend a player (retroactively) for things the league has never seen fit to suspend him for?

Why is off-field conduct a worse black eye (apparently, from the punishment) than on-field assault and performance-enhancing drugs?

These are just a few questions that don't make any sense in Goodell's whimsical approach to doling out punishments.

 

[Hostile]

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.

How in the world can you possibly claim that? You have no evidence but this story.

Do you have a statistic showing all the blackmail attempts that don't get reported?

Do you have a statistic that shows all the ones that do?

For all you know at this point this may be the 400th example of someone trying, or the 40th, or the 4th, or the 1st. You have no idea, and neither does anyone else at this point.

I don't see how you can say this is new or improved or ground breaking, because it isn't.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well the pressident has been set and even Pacman has walked away from the appeal. As for Goodell he does not have to have the same burden of prove that a criminal courts uses just as the burden of prove in a civil case is much less than that of a criminal case.

i understand he can do it that doesnt mean he should.

whats he going to do when he screws over a player by jumping the gun only to see them later exonerated just like lofton was in 1996?

I still dont see why people dont think Goodell should have waited another two weeks for jones' court cases to conclude and then put the hammer down.

 

[Vintage]

How in the world can you possibly claim that? You have no evidence but this story.

Do you have a statistic showing all the blackmail attempts that don't get reported?

Do you have a statistic that shows all the ones that do?

For all you know at this point this may be the 400th example of someone trying, or the 40th, or the 4th, or the 1st. You have no idea, and neither does anyone else at this point.

I don't see how you can say this is new or improved or ground breaking, because it isn't.

I do.

10%


:laugh2:

 

[Hostile]

and for the majority conduct detrimental is criminal in nature. hes not suspending these guys cause they are badmouthing the refs to the press. lets get real.

in the case of jones and henry specifically he determined that they were guilty of what they were accused of before a court of law did.

look up james lofton in 1996 and youll see why tagliabue never did this nonsense goodell is prone to do.

Uh, I think that's a reach mang. I know why you're saying it, and I partially agree, but I don't think he has determiend that anyone is guilty of anything except not living up to NFL standards of conduct. Guilt of something criminal isn't needed for that to apply.

 

[Hostile]

I do.

10%


:laugh2:

Link?

 

[Doomsday101]

i understand he can do it that doesnt mean he should.

whats he going to do when he screws over a player by jumping the gun only to see them later exonerated just like lofton was in 1996?

I still dont see why people dont think Goodell should have waited another two weeks for jones' court cases to conclude and then put the hammer down.

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

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I personally dont care about the lengths of the suspensions; my main concern is judge goodells process for determining guilt.

Its the process that is coming into question not the result. I think if punk had any idea how he came to the 1 year number other than pulling a number out of a hat he would be fine with it but the suspensions handed out so far have been inconsistent.

Inconsistent...How many people has he suspended since he has taken over?

I can think of three off the top of my head, at least the three that have the long suspensions.

Two seem to currently share the same number of games the other a year.

I would also remind those that Pac -man (and/or his lawyers) dropped their appeal.

The commisioner does not have to give you, superpunk or any other person a certain guideline to follow if he does not wish to. It is also silly to think that guidelines for all suspensions would be the same. It would be just following the mistake of some laws in the country that have been grossly abused by those in power.

How can one expect a player to be given the same suspension for a breaking of the rules if the circumstances and situations are different.

Example...

Player A who has been a good player that made a mistake (rule violation) but has shown what you feel to be honest measures and steps at redeeming himself and staying out of trouble.

Player B who has made the same mistake (rule violation) but has a history of breaking the rules, also shows little to no remorse for his actions nor does said player appear to be making any effort of staying out of trouble and fixing the problem.

So...Even though both players committed the same rules violation are you guys saying that a guideline for suspension should be the same for each player?


Sometimes the the person in charge of the punishment should have the ability to gauge what the punishment should be.

Goodell has been given that job.