theogt
Surrealist
- Messages
- 45,846
- Reaction score
- 5,912
Goodell's conduct policy has some gray areas
By Floyd Reese
ESPN.com
(Archive)
Updated: June 16, 2007Recently, the NFL's personal conduct policy has been widely covered in the media. Before I give my stance on this issue, let me first make a few things clear.
• I am in full support of commissioner Roger Goodell's new conduct policy.
• I support the NFL's discipline of Adam "Pacman" Jones and Chris Henry.
• Although I am not a lawyer, I understand the relationship between the league, clubs, agents and lawyers.
• Possibly the two most important elements to a player and his career are money and playing time.
• I harbor no ill-will against Tank Johnson, Jones or Henry.
• Consistency is by far the most frustrating part of the league-mandated policy. The same incidents should face the same punishment with no exceptions.
Although never convicted of a crime since drafted, Jones will miss a year of compensation based on the frequency and magnitude of his brushes with the law, and the negative impact they have had on the league. I completely understand and support the logic. Even though Jones may not have a record, he has certainly failed to conduct himself with the integrity that this league's players, coaches, staff and alumni would expect.
Henry had a combination of convictions and incidents, but they were less severe and fewer in number than Jones'. Therefore, a lesser, but still significant amount of discipline fits the program.
Then we have Johnson, who has been accused of a number of serious crimes and also has been convicted and sentenced to prison time. Yet Johnson received an eight-game suspension, meaning he will still play and get paid for a half of the 2007 season.
The logic escapes me. What is the lesson? Admit guilt and do your time so you can still play and, more importantly, get paid? Is the severity of the incident less of an issue? Have frequency and publicity become the key elements? Isn't being convicted of a crime much more severe than being a suspect? Did the fact that Johnson has paid his debt to society have any bearing on the penalty?
The roles of the union and the courts are out of the commissioner's hands, but the consistency and logic of the league-mandated policy and punishments are within his scope. I believe a conviction must carry at least as much weight as several nonconvictions. Loss of playing time and salary must be imposed on a basis unique to the NFL, yet easily understood by the public and players. I guarantee a policy based on clear-cut crime-and-punishment parameters would be the best method to curtail these incidents.
To reiterate, the single most important element of this new player conduct policy is consistency. The player's name, position, ability and team should have nothing to do with the disciplinary measures. I completely agree with the severity of the punishment that Jones and Henry received, but I cannot say with complete certainty that Johnson was judged with the same austerity.
Former Tennessee Titans general manager Floyd Reese contributes frequently to ESPN.com.
By Floyd Reese
ESPN.com
(Archive)
Updated: June 16, 2007Recently, the NFL's personal conduct policy has been widely covered in the media. Before I give my stance on this issue, let me first make a few things clear.
• I am in full support of commissioner Roger Goodell's new conduct policy.
• I support the NFL's discipline of Adam "Pacman" Jones and Chris Henry.
• Although I am not a lawyer, I understand the relationship between the league, clubs, agents and lawyers.
• Possibly the two most important elements to a player and his career are money and playing time.
• I harbor no ill-will against Tank Johnson, Jones or Henry.
• Consistency is by far the most frustrating part of the league-mandated policy. The same incidents should face the same punishment with no exceptions.
Although never convicted of a crime since drafted, Jones will miss a year of compensation based on the frequency and magnitude of his brushes with the law, and the negative impact they have had on the league. I completely understand and support the logic. Even though Jones may not have a record, he has certainly failed to conduct himself with the integrity that this league's players, coaches, staff and alumni would expect.
Henry had a combination of convictions and incidents, but they were less severe and fewer in number than Jones'. Therefore, a lesser, but still significant amount of discipline fits the program.
Then we have Johnson, who has been accused of a number of serious crimes and also has been convicted and sentenced to prison time. Yet Johnson received an eight-game suspension, meaning he will still play and get paid for a half of the 2007 season.
The logic escapes me. What is the lesson? Admit guilt and do your time so you can still play and, more importantly, get paid? Is the severity of the incident less of an issue? Have frequency and publicity become the key elements? Isn't being convicted of a crime much more severe than being a suspect? Did the fact that Johnson has paid his debt to society have any bearing on the penalty?
The roles of the union and the courts are out of the commissioner's hands, but the consistency and logic of the league-mandated policy and punishments are within his scope. I believe a conviction must carry at least as much weight as several nonconvictions. Loss of playing time and salary must be imposed on a basis unique to the NFL, yet easily understood by the public and players. I guarantee a policy based on clear-cut crime-and-punishment parameters would be the best method to curtail these incidents.
To reiterate, the single most important element of this new player conduct policy is consistency. The player's name, position, ability and team should have nothing to do with the disciplinary measures. I completely agree with the severity of the punishment that Jones and Henry received, but I cannot say with complete certainty that Johnson was judged with the same austerity.
Former Tennessee Titans general manager Floyd Reese contributes frequently to ESPN.com.
