Goodell takes step in right direction re: Cheating

[tyke1doe]

So it was a "sign this or don't earn millions" type of consent? Gotcha. How is that consent again?

And did each player personally sign off on it before it became the policy?

No, the policy was already established, just like when an employee gets hired by a company which randomly drug tests its employees. You're given your company handbook, you're informed of the policy and if you don't like it, you either move to another department or quit. I'm pretty certain that NFL players receive handbooks or policy guidelines from the league. Most companies disseminate such information to their employees.

Second, regardless what you think about the drug policy, the NFL has one. And it is crafted in such a way that allows the NFL to drug test players. And players give their consent when they take one. Now, I'm sure that the NFL's policy has been properly vetted through its legal department to make sure it doesn't violate a player's rights to privacy (and, yes, players still have certain basic privacy rights even in the NFL). But that's what policy is. It establishes guidelines. If it weren't necessary and weren't interested in being legally compliant, companies wouldn't have them.

Incidentally, with respect to your question above, isn't that what happened in the Ricky Williams situation? Ricky Williams tested positive for marijuana. He didn't want to abide by the NFL's policy because he didn't like it. He left football. He decides to come back. But if he wanted to get back into the NFL, he had to submit himself to the NFL's policy with respect to its drug testing. He is giving his consent by agreeing to play again. If he doesn't want to take the test, he doesn't have to play. That's within his right to do.

You may wanna rethink taking those little shots at me. Usually when you do that it's after some simpleton remark by you, where you think you've "got me." Problem is I'm about 18 steps ahead of you. I guess you could say I've been giving you just enough rope to hang yourself.

Or lasso you.
If you think you're 18 steps ahead of me, I won't interrupt your Internet sense of importance or your fantasies.
I'm just surprised that as an attorney you don't understand how these things work. Drug testing, privacy rights and consent aren't foreign issues. I deal with them as an employee and as a reporter I've had to write stories about drug testing policies and the concerns about privacy issues.
Then again, maybe your specialty of law isn't in those areas.

 

[Verdict]

I think Goodell has done a poor job of being evenhanded in his punishment and appears to be playing favorites even if hes not.

Maybe there is a good rationale for destroying the improper tapes which were in the Patriots possession, but I can't think of one. In most instances evidence of wrongdoing is PRESERVED at all costs, not destroyed. I still can't figure out why Goodell took this approach.

The only thing that comes to mind is that if the evidence were to be made public, that the magnitude of the evidence was so great that its disclosure would adversely impact the integrity of the game to the point the NFL appeared to be like pro wrestling.

 

[peplaw06]

No, the policy was already established, just like when an employee gets hired by a company which randomly drug tests its employees. You're given your company handbook, you're informed of the policy and if you don't like it, you either move to another department or quit. I'm pretty certain that NFL players receive handbooks or policy guidelines from the league. Most companies disseminate such information to their employees.

Second, regardless what you think about the drug policy, the NFL has one. And it is crafted in such a way that allows the NFL to drug test players. And players give their consent when they take one. Now, I'm sure that the NFL's policy has been properly vetted through its legal department to make sure it doesn't violate a player's rights to privacy (and, yes, players still have certain basic privacy rights even in the NFL). But that's what policy is. It establishes guidelines. If it weren't necessary and weren't interested in being legally compliant, companies wouldn't have them.

Incidentally, with respect to your question above, isn't that what happened in the Ricky Williams situation? Ricky Williams tested positive for marijuana. He didn't want to abide by the NFL's policy because he didn't like it. He left football. He decides to come back. But if he wanted to get back into the NFL, he had to submit himself to the NFL's policy with respect to its drug testing. He is giving his consent by agreeing to play again. If he doesn't want to take the test, he doesn't have to play. That's within his right to do.

The NFL is a legalized monopoly. Believing that each and every player is giving their full consent to every policy in the NFL freely and voluntarily is the height of absurdity.

Or lasso you.
If you think you're 18 steps ahead of me, I won't interrupt your Internet sense of importance or your fantasies.
I'm just surprised that as an attorney you don't understand how these things work. Drug testing, privacy rights and consent aren't foreign issues. I deal with them as an employee and as a reporter I've had to write stories about drug testing policies and the concerns about privacy issues.
Then again, maybe your specialty of law isn't in those areas.

I think it's cute that you think you can teach me anything regarding the law or legal issues when you've been proven wrong time after time after time after time after...

 

[tyke1doe]

The NFL is a legalized monopoly. Believing that each and every player is giving their full consent to every policy in the NFL freely and voluntarily is the height of absurdity.

But we're talking about the drug testing policy here, counselor. And the NFL DOES administer drug tests. So whether the consent was written or implied with an athlete's agreement to play in the NFL, it is being done.

I think it's cute that you think you can teach me anything regarding the law or legal issues when you've been proven wrong time after time after time after time after...

And I do give your legal expertise some weight, as much as one can not knowing the person with whom he is conversating or his particular background. Remember, this is an anonymous board, and I don't know you from Adam.
But when you engage in an argument with me about legal issues and then offer as an example evidence that would be "inadmissible" in court, I have to question how thoroughly you do know the law.

That's not the type of mistake a lawyer should make. But I do think it's - using your terminology - cute that a lawyer would make such a mistake. Even if he can't admit it.

A reporter? I can see. A lawyer? :laugh2:

 

[peplaw06]

But we're talking about the drug testing policy here, counselor. And the NFL DOES administer drug tests. So whether the consent was written or implied with an athlete's agreement to play in the NFL, it is being done.

The point is, that is not really consent. They must agree to it, or they don't play football. If I don't consent to a search of my car when a police officer pulls me over, they can't prevent me from driving for that.

But when you engage in an argument with me about legal issues and then offer as an example evidence that would be "inadmissible" in court, I have to question how thoroughly you do know the law.

That's not the type of mistake a lawyer should make. But I do think it's - using your terminology - cute that a lawyer would make such a mistake. Even if he can't admit it.

Actually I'll admit I did make a mistake. The mistake is that if your employer searched your personal property without your consent and found stolen company property, it would be admissible. Your employer is not law enforcement, or the state. As such the 4th amendment doesn't apply to them.

So no matter how you cut it, it's not illegal for your employer to search your personal property.

Good luck spinning this one.

 

[tyke1doe]

The point is, that is not really consent. They must agree to it, or they don't play football. If I don't consent to a search of my car when a police officer pulls me over, they can't prevent me from driving for that.

Didn't I say this ?

Actually I'll admit I did make a mistake. The mistake is that if your employer searched your personal property without your consent and found stolen company property, it would be admissible. Your employer is not law enforcement, or the state. As such the 4th amendment doesn't apply to them.

Fair enough, you admitted your mistake. That's good enough for me.

But I would offer if your employer found stole company property, the issue of admissibility would be moot wouldn't it? You would merely be fired.

So no matter how you cut it, it's not illegal for your employer to search your personal property.

Good luck spinning this one.

I disagree because your statement suggests that your employer could search your personal effects - wallet, pockets, etc. And I doubt your employer has the right to do that. Now, he could if you fear that you may not have a job if you don't submit to the search. But I would think you would have a pretty good lawsuit if your employer fired you because you didn't allow him to search your person because he suspected you stole something.

 

[peplaw06]

Didn't I say this ?

Yeah you said that, but you don't get the point. The point is that's not true consent. That's what some would call a contract of adhesion. There is no equal bargaining power on that term. They agree to it or don't play. True consent is voluntary, not forced.

Fair enough, you admitted your mistake. That's good enough for me.

I admitted making A mistake. That's not the mistake you thought I made. My mistake only bolsters my point.

But I would offer if your employer found stole company property, the issue of admissibility would be moot wouldn't it? You would merely be fired.

No it's not moot. If they pursue criminal charges against you, then the firing may be the least of your troubles.

I disagree because your statement suggests that your employer could search your personal effects - wallet, pockets, etc. And I doubt your employer has the right to do that.

I'm sure he has the right to do it through some kind of contract or company policy. He's certainly not prevented from doing it by any laws or the Constitution.

Now, he could if you fear that you may not have a job if you don't submit to the search. But I would think you would have a pretty good lawsuit if your employer fired you because you didn't allow him to search your person because he suspected you stole something.

I don't think so... What would be your claim?

 

[tyke1doe]

Yeah you said that, but you don't get the point. The point is that's not true consent. That's what some would call a contract of adhesion. There is no equal bargaining power on that term. They agree to it or don't play. True consent is voluntary, not forced.

Fair enough. I'm using "consent" when that may not be the appropriate term. But the concept is similar, IMO. You have an option to either play or not play. But if that is considered a "contract of adhesion" then that addresses the issue as far as I'm concerned.

I admitted making A mistake. That's not the mistake you thought I made. My mistake only bolsters my point.

The mistake, though, clarifies my perception of your qualifications. You made a mistake which I didn't think a lawyer would make. You clarified that you made that mistake so I'm more open to accepting your opinion.

No it's not moot. If they pursue criminal charges against you, then the firing may be the least of your troubles.

And the courts would accept the fact a company conducted such a search without said search being detailed in company policy as legitimate?

I'm sure he has the right to do it through some kind of contract or company policy. He's certainly not prevented from doing it by any laws or the Constitution. I don't think so... What would be your claim?

Your first statement goes to my point. You acknowledge he has the right through some kind of contract or company policy. Absent company policy spelling out such a search, do you think a judge/jury is going to rule for the company?

In cases of lawsuits involving employees and employers, company policy plays a large part, does it not, especially if the issue is whether a company adhered to its policies or it didn't? And if it didn't, what is the principle that guides the rights of the employee? The fact that the company didn't adhere to its policy or that the employee has basic certain rights which prevent a company from capricously (spelling?) violating the rights of employees?

Employees still maintain a certain level of Constitutional rights even on the job don't they?

 

[peplaw06]

And the courts would accept the fact a company conducted such a search without said search being detailed in company policy as legitimate?

Yes, because the company is not a state actor.

It would be like John Doe finding the corpse in the trunk of your car. If he finds it, he can testify to what he found, he can give the Police Probable Cause to search your car, etc. He's not a state actor who can violate your 4th amendment rights against search and seizure.

Your first statement goes to my point. You acknowledge he has the right through some kind of contract or company policy. Absent company policy spelling out such a search, do you think a judge/jury is going to rule for the company?

There's a difference between a civil suit and criminal charges. If the company violates a policy from a contract, that is a separate proceeding. If the state pursues criminal charges against you for what your company found, then anything the company found in a search is admissible, because they're not a state actor.

In cases of lawsuits involving employees and employers, company policy plays a large part, does it not, especially if the issue is whether a company adhered to its policies or it didn't? And if it didn't, what is the principle that guides the rights of the employee? The fact that the company didn't adhere to its policy or that the employee has basic certain rights which prevent a company from capricously (spelling?) violating the rights of employees?

Like I said, suits between civil parties have a completely different set of rules than a defendant versus the state. If you're talking strictly criminal proceedings, which is really the only forum where illegal searches exist, then a private actor cannot violate the 4th amendment.

Employees still maintain a certain level of Constitutional rights even on the job don't they?

Sure they do. The company can't call in the authorities to conduct a search without probable cause.

But anything found by the company during a search is admissible. And if the company provides the cops with PC, then any subsequent searches with warrants would be legal.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes, because the company is not a state actor.

It would be like John Doe finding the corpse in the trunk of your car. If he finds it, he can testify to what he found, he can give the Police Probable Cause to search your car, etc. He's not a state actor who can violate your 4th amendment rights against search and seizure.

There's a difference between a civil suit and criminal charges. If the company violates a policy from a contract, that is a separate proceeding. If the state pursues criminal charges against you for what your company found, then anything the company found in a search is admissible, because they're not a state actor.

Like I said, suits between civil parties have a completely different set of rules than a defendant versus the state. If you're talking strictly criminal proceedings, which is really the only forum where illegal searches exist, then a private actor cannot violate the 4th amendment.

Sure they do. The company can't call in the authorities to conduct a search without probable cause.

But anything found by the company during a search is admissible. And if the company provides the cops with PC, then any subsequent searches with warrants would be legal.

Okay.

I guess I was way off and must have been operating under some different assumptions.

But you're the lawyer so I defer to your knowledge.

Despite our previous back-and-forth, I am committed to truth. So I can acknowledge when I might be in error.

Thanks for the explanation.