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

[Vintage]

Link?

10% is my favorite stat.


It works for so many different things..... Need a stat? 10% works. Plug n play.

(Note, I wasn't being serious with the 10%)

 

[skinsscalper]

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



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.



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.

Keep in mind, also, that CURRENT NFL players went to Goodell (including our own Jason Whitten) and prompted him to "clean it up". I've yet to hear a complaint from any current players (other than Pac Man, who subsequently dropped his appeal) about the harshness of ANY of these punishments or about Goodell "acting like a dictator".

None of these players have been suspended for being "under suspicion" (if that was the case Vick would already be packing his bags). Pac Man WAS THERE, he was a major player in the series of events that lead to a man being shot and paralyzed. Whether one of his "cronies" was the shooter or whether or not he can be legally charged is irrelevent, he was a vital player in the overall scene. Period. The guy is no stranger to running afoul of the law. Just because he could afford a slick enough lawyer to get charges dropped doesn't mean that he hasn't done anything wrong. This is the "rich enough to commit murder and get away with it" trump card.

It's not these players' RIGHT to play in the NFL. It's a privilege. To maintain that privilege, there's a code of conduct that's standards are set higher than merely obeying the law (as with ANY JOB. I can't go to work and like a ***** to everyone and expect to keep my job, even though my offense was not "illegal").

The fact that none of these guys are Michael Irvin is irrelevent (the homer card was a bad play here). There's a standard to be adhered to. If the players can't manage to live by a strict code of conduct for the sake of earning multiple millions a year, then they can go out like every other Joe on the planet and make a living in the real world like the rest of us.

As far as the original post, Henry won't be suspended OR charged without something pretty concrete (just as no one else has). And, the story DOES sound pretty fishy. I'm sure both the police AND the NFL are taking that tidbit into account.

SS

 

[Hostile]

10% is my favorite stat.


It works for so many different things..... Need a stat? 10% works. Plug n play.

(Note, I wasn't being serious with the 10%)

You weren't?

It's now official, all of my illusions are shattered.

 

[joseephuss]

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.

I don't think it is retroactive punishment for either Pacman or Henry. There is a need to wait to see how some cases play out. We aren't talking about punishing them for something that happened 5 years ago, but things that have occurred in the last year to two years. Same will occur with Vick. We have to wait to see how that plays out and it may be a year from now before we see a suspension.

Why blame Goodell soley for off the field vs. on-field suspensions? Seems there is more of an uproar to deal with the off the field issues from the fans, owners and players than to deal with on- field issues. What Haynesworth did was nasty, but that kind of thing is very rare in the NFL? Even at that he got a record suspension. I just don't see how it applies to the conversation of Goodell being consistent. It is a different topic.

Why bring up performance enhancing drugs? Goodell has no power to determine the punishment for those issues. Those suspensions are clearly defined. Maybe the league as a whole needs to reevaluate the process and suspensions for performance enhancing drugs. I am for that. I just don't see how that relates or applies to Goodell and his suspensions of Pacman, Henry and Tank.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

he is saying that he did the acts that he was accused of. thats not a reach.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Keep in mind, also, that CURRENT NFL players went to Goodell (including our own Jason Whitten) and prompted him to "clean it up". I've yet to hear a complaint from any current players (other than Pac Man, who subsequently dropped his appeal) about the harshness of ANY of these punishments or about Goodell "acting like a dictator".

None of these players have been suspended for being "under suspicion" (if that was the case Vick would already be packing his bags). Pac Man WAS THERE, he was a major player in the series of events that lead to a man being shot and paralyzed. Whether one of his "cronies" was the shooter or whether or not he can be legally charged is irrelevent, he was a vital player in the overall scene. Period. The guy is no stranger to running afoul of the law. Just because he could afford a slick enough lawyer to get charges dropped doesn't mean that he hasn't done anything wrong. This is the "rich enough to commit murder and get away with it" trump card.

It's not these players' RIGHT to play in the NFL. It's a privilege. To maintain that privilege, there's a code of conduct that's standards are set higher than merely obeying the law (as with ANY JOB. I can't go to work and like a ***** to everyone and expect to keep my job, even though my offense was not "illegal").

The fact that none of these guys are Michael Irvin is irrelevent (the homer card was a bad play here). There's a standard to be adhered to. If the players can't manage to live by a strict code of conduct for the sake of earning multiple millions a year, then they can go out like every other Joe on the planet and make a living in the real world like the rest of us.

As far as the original post, Henry won't be suspended OR charged without something pretty concrete (just as no one else has). And, the story DOES sound pretty fishy. I'm sure both the police AND the NFL are taking that tidbit into account.

SS

pacman wasnt suspended for the las vegas activity.

thank you please drive through.

 

[skinsscalper]

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



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.



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.

pacman wasnt suspended for the las vegas activity.

thank you please drive through.

If you think that the Las Vegas incident didn't bear weight on Pac Man's suspension YOU might want to drive through. Oh and thank you.

SS

 

[Hostile]

he is saying that he did the acts that he was accused of. thats not a reach.

I don't think so at all Fuzz. I think he's suspended these guys for their acts that violate their code of conduct clauses in their standard NFL contracts and the fact that they are repeat offenders, which falls under the code of conduct.

He doesn't need Due Process by a court of law to have been rendered to act on those clauses and he is moving forward because he does not need that. He is doing this to send a message to the entire NFL.

Truthfully how can anyone blame him? Would you rather Congress get involved as they are with Major League Baseball? Not me.

 

[superpunk]

I don't think it is retroactive punishment for either Pacman or Henry. There is a need to wait to see how some cases play out. We aren't talking about punishing them for something that happened 5 years ago, but things that have occurred in the last year to two years. Same will occur with Vick. We have to wait to see how that plays out and it may be a year from now before we see a suspension.

So you believe they are being punished solely for their current actions?

If that's so, the disconnect between what seems fair and what was actually doled out becomes even more pronounced.

Why blame Goodell soley for off the field vs. on-field suspensions? Seems there is more of an uproar to deal with the off the field issues from the fans, owners and players than to deal with on- field issues. What Haynesworth did was nasty, but that kind of thing is very rare in the NFL? Even at that he got a record suspension. I just don't see how it applies to the conversation of Goodell being consistent. It is a different topic.

It falls under the suspensions Goodell has meted out. What you've suggested is that he's simply pandering to public opinion - what they think is worse. I don't quite get giddy about that.

Goodell might not owe anyone an explanation for what he's doing - but I'm sure not going to stand around and pat his behind (verbally) and applaud his brilliant stance on these issues when I view them as unfair and inconsistent.

The English Kings didn't have to give anyone a set of guidelines for what they wanted to tax...Hitler didn't have to give anyone a set of guidelines for who he wanted to kill - that didn't stop people from speaking out.

(waits patiently for "How could you compare Goodell to hitler responses.)

Why bring up performance enhancing drugs? Goodell has no power to determine the punishment for those issues. Those suspensions are clearly defined. Maybe the league as a whole needs to reevaluate the process and suspensions for performance enhancing drugs. I am for that. I just don't see how that relates or applies to Goodell and his suspensions of Pacman, Henry and Tank.

You're right. That was nonsense. I didn't consider what you stated.

 

[joseephuss]

I don't think so at all Fuzz. I think he's suspended these guys for their acts that violate their code of conduct clauses in their standard NFL contracts and the fact that they are repeat offenders, which falls under the code of conduct.

He doesn't need Due Process by a court of law to have been rendered to act on those clauses and he is moving forward because he does not need that. He is doing this to send a message to the entire NFL.

Truthfully how can anyone blame him? Would you rather Congress get involved as they are with Major League Baseball? Not me.

The NFLPA also pushed or at least encourage him to do this. Chris Mortenson said he spoke with every player rep and they all wanted suspensions. He also said that several wanted Pacman banned, not just suspended.

None of this stuff is crystal clear, but how can it be? These are the extreme cases in the NFL. How can you clearly define dealing with Pacman Jones when there are less than a handful of guys that have acted like him in the history of the league.

 

[Seven]

Hi. I'm Seven, and I'm an alcoholic.

 

[joseephuss]

So you believe they are being punished solely for their current actions?

If that's so, the disconnect between what seems fair and what was actually doled out becomes even more pronounced.



It falls under the suspensions Goodell has meted out. What you've suggested is that he's simply pandering to public opinion - what they think is worse. I don't quite get giddy about that.

Goodell might not owe anyone an explanation for what he's doing - but I'm sure not going to stand around and pat his behind (verbally) and applaud his brilliant stance on these issues when I view them as unfair and inconsistent.

The English Kings didn't have to give anyone a set of guidelines for what they wanted to tax...Hitler didn't have to give anyone a set of guidelines for who he wanted to kill - that didn't stop people from speaking out.

(waits patiently for "How could you compare Goodell to hitler responses.)



You're right. That was nonsense. I didn't consider what you stated.

I do think Goodell is pandering to the public. In some sense that is his job, but I don't think it is so direct. He really is pandering to the owners and players. In turn those guys are pandering to the public. The public is what makes the NFL so successful. The owners and players are the ones who are pushing to deal with guys like Henry and Pacman.

I get that Goodell hands out suspensions for both on and off the field incidents. There is some overlap, but at the same time they are different issues. If suddenly there is a surge in on field incidents, then I am sure it would receive more focus. Of course that would be pandering to the public.

You(as part of the public) obviously feel Haynesworth type actions deserve more than 5 games. I don't really disagree with that although I was happy he got 5 games, which was 2.5 times longer than the previous long suspension for on field incidents. I figured Goodell would just slap him on the wrist, but since there was an outcry from fans and players, Goodell set a record.

I am not patting Goodell on the back. To me it isn't about thinking he is so great, but I just don't see him as so bad. I don't see the inconsistencies. Maybe that is yet to come. I can see the potential for that, but at this point it has not happened.

I do see the situation as a whole as a good thing. It brings about discussion and necessary back and forth to come up with guidelines. I am disappointed that Pacman withdrew his appeal. I thought it was a necessary part of the process that will help bring about the set guidelines that you crave. At least get closer to them.

 

[Vintage]

You weren't?

It's now official, all of my illusions are shattered.

LOL, I didn't know if you were being serious when you asked me for a link.

That's great that you understand the 10% joke too....


:laugh2:


EDIT: Wait, did someone actually compare Goodell to Hitler? Wow.

eat that superpunk.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

sounds like Goddell just made NFL players targets for extortion. With the way things are I think you are going to see more and more people have "incidents" with NFL players because they know the players are going to be suspended if they go to the police.

Pray tell, re your trip to Africa, who are the lovely gals????

You can trust me. You know how Greg Ellis is a great baby sitter? I am a great sitter with the babes.

 

[sacase]

Pray tell, re your trip to Africa, who are the lovely gals????

You can trust me. You know how Greg Ellis is a great baby sitter? I am a great sitter with the babes.

LOL the one with the blond hair is mine (she also has the Von Dutch shirt on so hands off)

The ones are her friends. They are all Ethiopian.

Africa is heaven when it comes to women. I saw this one woman at the Airport in Ethiopian that was so beautiful I couldn't get my jaw up off the ground to talk to her....she could have got an instant fiance visa....LOL

One good thing about being in the DC metro area, there are a lot of Ethiopians here

 

[Hostile]

LOL the one with the blond hair is mine (she also has the Von Dutch shirt on so hands off)

The ones are her friends. They are all Ethiopian.

Africa is heaven when it comes to women. I saw this one woman at the Airport in Ethiopian that was so beautiful I couldn't get my jaw up off the ground to talk to her....she could have got an instant fiance visa....LOL

One good thing about being in the DC metro area, there are a lot of Ethiopians here

Same thing could have happened to me with this girl from Greece. I never shut up. I literally had nothing I could think to say.

 

[sacase]

Same thing could have happened to me with this girl from Greece. I never shut up. I literally had nothing I could think to say.

You know I wonder, do we get the short end of the stick or is it because they come from a different culture?

 

[Hostile]

You know I wonder, do we get the short end of the stick or is it because they come from a different culture?

I can't answer. Accents mesmerize me, but the Greek girl I'm talking about never even spoke to me or anyone else that I ever heard her voice. There was something about her body, skin, and eyes that just had me transfixed. She smiled at me and like you said, fiance' visa would have been no problem at all because I was hooked.

To this day I have no idea why I couldn't walk over to her and flirt. That has never happened before or since. I was an expert flirt.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

everyone, the arrests of NFL players doubled or something to that nature from a year or 2 ago, I don't know why anyone is suprised and upset that Goodell is throwing down the hammer

and it's only a matter of time before the Government steps in like they did in the Steroid case, the NFL doesn't want that, nor does it need it, it just further tarnishes the game like these miscreants are already doing

I would like to hear proposed what Goodell should do, I guess I missed it

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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 isn't determining what is criminal, but what is detrimental to the league, and the arrest rate going up is doing exactly that and Henry and PacMan are among their biggest offenders, or repeated I should say