*CONFIRMED post #238, pg 16* Tank Johnson Would Be Available to Us In Week 9

[theogt]

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/story/231291.html

I still don't understand the point of posting articles that say one way or the other, because there are articles that claim both sides.

 

[Hostile]

I can't prove that he's already served 1 game. Luckily I've never argued that point. I have no idea if he has or hasn't.

You, however, have argued that he hasn't served, so the burden of proof doesn't just magically disappear.

You can do better than this Counselor. I've seen it many times.

 

[theogt]

Yes it does require that. How can he serve an NFL suspension when he is not a contracted member of the NFL?

This has been explained in this thread repeatedly.

 

[iceberg]

I can't prove that he's already served 1 game. Luckily I've never argued that point. I have no idea if he has or hasn't.

You, however, have argued that he hasn't served, so the burden of proof doesn't just magically disappear.

and he's provided ample evidence you choose not to accept but to discect for some saddistic measure.

at this point what else could he provide that would end this? NOTHING. he'd provide it you'd go loophole hunting and that goes nowhere in a forum, just take it to court and talk to the lawyer.

 

[iceberg]

I still don't understand the point of posting articles that say one way or the other, because there are articles that claim both sides.

so counselor - this bullet you're looking for - exactly what is it and what does it look like?

 

[theogt]

You can do better than this Counselor. I've seen it many times.

I'm sorry that you misunderstand my position. I'm not making an argument one way or the other. As I said earlier, I only have one agenda and that's getting to the truth.

 

[joseephuss]

wow. i'd think he'd count on the roster as part of the punishment but that does punish the team some.

good catch.

wait - from a recent post from mickeys mail:

There were a couple of e-mailers suggesting the Cowboys should bring back wide receiver Antonio Bryant. Well, just remember, whoever signs Bryant must make room on their 53-man roster for a day – meaning cutting someone – before Bryant goes on reserve/suspended to serve his looming two-game suspension.

if i read this right he'd be counting on their 53 man roster...anyone know for sure?

I just saw that, too. Of course I don't trust Spagnola when he presents facts. I would be interested to see the answer to that one as well.

 

[sacase]

Given the precedent set under Tags, I don't agree. He has no case.

come on now, don't bring up precedent. People can't have it both ways. Either Precident only matters with that commish or it matters all the time. I have seen so many people say it doesn't matter what tags did with reguards to punishment since Goddell is the new commish.

 

[Big Dakota]

FWIW, I never said he wouldn't have to serve the 8 games after signing with a team, just that he would have a good case if he tried to fight it.

Just a question. Why doesn't Odell Thurman fight it and win? He served his mandated 1 year. He could be playing now.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yea, i told fuzzy to prove his point and find his own links and it got ugly from there.

but on the other hand, i'm pretty sure i've insulted fuzzy.

I gave an official press release that stated that he was to be suspended for the first 8 games of the 2008 season. OTOH you never supported your stance with anything rather you ride the coattails of others.

Its not cut and dry and Id actually be interested to hear something official from the NFL becasue Ricky Williams was retired and not seeking employment and AB and Q dont prove anything other than no team wants to sign them as of yet.

Now i am willing to take USA Today and Spags at face value and give them the benefit of the doubt for now but these are the same morons that were parroting that gambling automatically equaled a lifetime ban when that was clearly not the case as per the CBA.

I read the CBA and its not clear so in that case as i have stated before i would say that its in the hands of Goodell given that. He can do what he wants.

 

[peplaw06]

I cant catch up with this thread... not enough time... But an interesting debate nonetheless. Initially I thought it was that he had to be under contract, but then I got to thinking... These long suspensions oftentimes lead to a team cutting a guy because he's dead weight, and they don't want to pay him if he can't be of use.

Take Vick for instance. Let's say he gets cut by the Falcons in the offseason. He's in prison and serving his "indefinite suspension." After he gets out, Goodell sets his suspension at an additional year.

If a team wants to give him a shot, do they have to sign him immediately and pay him, though he would be dead weight for a year before he can play?? Like the issue is with Tank, why would you want to sign a guy and pay him if he can't play for you? So it leads you to a scenario where a long suspension is essentially a life-long ban for these guys if they had to be under contract to serve their suspension.

I don't think that's very fair... just my $.02.

 

[joseephuss]

I'm sorry, but it is 100% clear.

"Under contract." It doesn't get any clearer than that and grasping at theories and philosophies hasn't changed that 1 iota.

You don't have to be sorry. Besides I was never arguing the point of whether his suspension started or not. The only thing I was truly discussing was whether Dallas should sign him or not. And I am not necessarily opposed to signing him. I just don't see the point of signing him.

 

[theogt]

so counselor - this bullet you're looking for - exactly what is it and what does it look like?

Some sort of legal document that is on point and conclusive. Unfortunately, it may not actually exist. The actual policy is probably all dependent upon tradition and arbitrary interpretations of vague contractual language.

 

[Hostile]

Just a question. Why doesn't Odell Thurman fight it and win? He served his mandated 1 year. He could be playing now.

There is that staring them in the face too isn't there?

 

[sacase]

There is that staring them in the face too isn't there?

Why did you skip the article I posted. I mean at least acknowledge it.

 

[theogt]

I'm sorry, but it is 100% clear.

"Under contract." It doesn't get any clearer than that and grasping at theories and philosophies hasn't changed that 1 iota.

It says players that are "under contract" are subject to the Conduct Policy. Tank was clearly under contract when he received the suspension. Nothing posted states that he has to be "under contract" for the suspension to be served.

 

[kmd24]

Given the precedent set under Tags, I don't agree. He has no case.

What precedent? Is there a player that has been suspended and subsequently cut who has fought the terms of his suspension in a court of law? I am not aware of one.

 

[Hostile]

Some sort of legal document that is on point and conclusive. Unfortunately, it may not actually exist. The actual policy is probably all dependent upon tradition and arbitrary interpretations of vague contractual language.

I called the NFL Offices in New York City. Yes, I am that confident I am right.

Unfortunately, I got sent to a voice mail for a Ms. Hunter.

So my question to all of you is simple. If she calls back and I honestly tell everyone what her answer is, will that be official enough?

 

[iceberg]

I gave an official press release that stated that he was to be suspended for the first 8 games of the 2008 season. OTOH you never supported your stance with anything rather you ride the coattails of others.

and i told you that's while he was UNDER CONTRACT with chicago and to find the same info *after* he was cut. YOU NEVER DID.

and i knew "support" with you was wasted time. thanks for proving that now don't get mad i didn't play your little "fetch something for me to refute" game.

 

[BigDFan5]

This has been explained in this thread repeatedly.

It has been attempted to be explained away, but the fact still remains a player not in the NFL can not serve an NFL suspension