NFLPA filed a motion to hold NFL/Goodell in contempt of court

[Galian Beast]

I'm pretty sure Doty brings up the time on the exempt list and notes it as a punishment in the background of his ruling.

He does not. He merely cites the NFLPA's briefing on the issue.

The NFLPA brought up the following issues:

The NFLPA identified the issues presented as follows: (1) whether the Commissioner impermissibly applied the New Policy to Peterson; (2) whether Peterson was deprived of a fair disciplinary process; (3) whether the imposition of a psychiatric counseling component is permissible under the CBA; and (4) whether the Exempt List can be used as a form of discipline under the CBA. See id. Ex. 20, at 4-5.

Doty agreed that the Commissioner was not permitted to apply the new policy to Peterson. He did not comment on whether or not Peterson was deprived of a fair disciplinary process. He did not comment on the counseling. And he did not comment on the exempt list.

 

[Rogah]

I don't know about that analogy. A lot of an athletes future pay is based on what they did most recently. Not being allowed to play and being labeled a wrongdoer could be cause for action.

Yes, I mentioned that such a player potentially has damages when looking at loss of future earnings, but that is a tough case to argue.

Hardy's case is very unusual. He would make almost as much this year as he did last year if he played all 16 games this year, so it would be tough to argue that his earnings went down based on missing all those games last year. Of course, he stands to lose money based on the length of his suspension, but that's a whole 'nother matter.

 

[Galian Beast]

Yes, I mentioned that such a player potentially has damages when looking at loss of future earnings, but that is a tough case to argue.

Hardy's case is very unusual. He would make almost as much this year as he did last year if he played all 16 games this year, so it would be tough to argue that his earnings went down based on missing all those games last year. Of course, he stands to lose money based on the length of his suspension, but that's a whole 'nother matter.

Hardy was considered one of the top pass rushers in the nfl. He likely would have gotten a substantially long term deal including a signing bonus had he been able to play all of last year (even minus 2 games). What if he plays on this years' contract and is hurt and as a result is unable to regain that compensation moving forward? It could be argued, and rightfully so, that the NFL by attempting to appease the criticism it received went outside of the CBA in order to punish Hardy excessively, thus damaging his earning potential.

 

[Nightman]

That is another bad analysis of what happened.

- NFLPA appealed the use of the exempt list to an arbitrator and cited it as an issue in the brief to Doty
- Judge Doty didn't overturn the suspension he vacated the arbitration award and sent it back for further arbitration
- He didn't say the complaints weren't necessary, he kept his decision as narrow as possible for this particular case and in finding that the arbitration was not dutifully performed he didn't even look at the exterior arguments the NFLPA brought up.

Assuming for a second that Henderson accepted Doty's ruling and arbitrated fairly according to the CBA, he could try and award Hardy a 2 game suspension. Hardy and the NFLPA could then still take this to court to have Doty look at the exempt list issue. And this could have been resolved by now had the NFL gone back to arbitration with Peterson on his suspension, because my guess is that ultimately Doty could find that the exempt list isn't a means to circumvent the regular disciplinary process, and that the NFLPA can only take 3 games finding and 2 games suspension in accordance with precedence, and since they've taken the 2 games from Hardy, they could only give him the fine. And they would need to pay Peterson for the 3 games he was forced to miss.

Doty ordered the suspension to be vacated. That is the same as overturning the suspension.

He ordered the arbitrator to issue a new ruling but clearly stated the rules of the CBA in place at the time of the alleged infraction had to be followed. Not the new policies.

 

[AzorAhai]

I think it was a 'bait and switch' that they pulled with Hardy and Peterson and the Commissioner's List. They made it sound like it would be a quiet way to stay off the front page while getting paid for a few weeks.

All of a sudden it turned into a year long punishment that had to be ruled on independently by Goodell just to be considered for reinstatement. NFL VP Troy Vincent sure made it sound like time on the list would count towards any suspension.

I find it absurd how long they were on the exempt list in general. They decided to put them on it with the intent of seeing how the courts ruled before ever handing down a suspension for AP and Hardy. Well if they're waiting to see how it played out in court, why would they suspend Hardy since the case was dismissed? If they're going to completely disregard the results of the case, why couldn't/didn't they suspend him last season. Thats the entire reason the double punishment stuff is even being brought up. Either let it play out in court before any punishment is doled out, including the exempt list, or do their own investigation prior to the court case and suspend him then.

The exempt list was never intended to be a place to stash a player the NFL/team doesn’t want to be tainted with. Did the Patriots put Hernandez on the exempt list? No. They didn't like what was going on and what he was facing so they cut him immediately. If the Vikings or Panthers didn't want to be associated with the players, cut him. I completely agree with you. They were probably both under the assumption that it would be a couple of games or maybe even half a season, but I seriously doubt either thought it would cost them a year AND in Hardys case, not even have his suspension be time served. If I were to venture a guess, I think that could be a big reason AP was so upset with the Vikings organization. He probably felt completely misled.

 

[Galian Beast]

Doty ordered the suspension to be vacated. That is the same as overturning the suspension.

He ordered the arbitrator to issue a new ruling but clearly stated the rules of the CBA in place at the time of the alleged infraction had to be followed. Not the new policies.

Again, no it isn't and I'm really beginning to question your comprehension on this.

There are three bodies at work here

The NFL - which handed down the suspension
The "neutral" arbitrator - which handed down the award
The Judge - who vacated the award

NOT the suspension.

Please see Judge Jones who vacated the NFL's suspension of Rice, not the arbitration award. They are not the same thing.

The arbitration award may or may not uphold the suspension as is. In this case the Arbitrator ruled 100% in favor of the NFL, the fact that the judge threw out that award does not negate the suspension at all, he specifically sent it back for further arbitration, which still begins with the NFL's initial suspension.

Let me give you an example..


Let's say the arbitrator says, Greg Hardy only gets a 6 game suspension. And a Judge threw out that award. It doesn't mean the 10 game suspension is thrown out. The suspension still stands until the arbitration is settled by a decision.

 

[Nightman]

Again, no it isn't and I'm really beginning to question your comprehension on this.

There are three bodies at work here

The NFL - which handed down the suspension
The "neutral" arbitrator - which handed down the award
The Judge - who vacated the award

NOT the suspension.

Please see Judge Jones who vacated the NFL's suspension of Rice, not the arbitration award. They are not the same thing.

The arbitration award may or may not uphold the suspension as is. In this case the Arbitrator ruled 100% in favor of the NFL, the fact that the judge threw out that award does not negate the suspension at all, he specifically sent it back for further arbitration, which still begins with the NFL's initial suspension.

Let me give you an example..


Let's say the arbitrator says, Greg Hardy only gets a 6 game suspension. And a Judge threw out that award. It doesn't mean the 10 game suspension is thrown out. The suspension still stands until the arbitration is settled by a decision.

Everything you have been saying on this is mostly wrong.

 

[Galian Beast]

I find it absurd how long they were on the exempt list in general. They decided to put them on it with the intent of seeing how the courts ruled before ever handing down a suspension for AP and Hardy. Well if they're waiting to see how it played out in court, why would they suspend Hardy since the case was dismissed? If they're going to completely disregard the results of the case, why couldn't/didn't they suspend him last season. Thats the entire reason the double punishment stuff is even being brought up. Either let it play out in court before any punishment is doled out, including the exempt list, or do their own investigation prior to the court case and suspend him then.

The exempt list was never intended to be a place to stash a player the NFL/team doesn’t want to be tainted with. Did the Patriots put Hernandez on the exempt list? No. They didn't like what was going on and what he was facing so they cut him immediately. If the Vikings or Panthers didn't want to be associated with the players, cut him. I completely agree with you. They were probably both under the assumption that it would be a couple of games or maybe even half a season, but I seriously doubt either thought it would cost them a year AND in Hardys case, not even have his suspension be time served. If I were to venture a guess, I think that could be a big reason AP was so upset with the Vikings organization. He probably felt completely misled.

They wanted to suspend them for the entire year to avoid a repeat of the ray rice situation. The problem however is that their decision to punish Ray Rice twice and their decision to officially put in a new policy, sent them down a rabbit hole of weak legal arguments, which were already on shaky ground due to the precedence of years of suspensions.

 

[Galian Beast]

Everything you have been saying on this is mostly wrong.

Keep telling yourself that, it's written in plain English... I'm stunned at how dense you are. You've really embarrassed yourself.

 

[Rogah]

Hardy was considered one of the top pass rushers in the nfl. He likely would have gotten a substantially long term deal including a signing bonus had he been able to play all of last year (even minus 2 games). What if he plays on this years' contract and is hurt and as a result is unable to regain that compensation moving forward? It could be argued, and rightfully so, that the NFL by attempting to appease the criticism it received went outside of the CBA in order to punish Hardy excessively, thus damaging his earning potential.

I think the fact that he did not get a long term deal has more to do with his status as someone who abuses women than it does with a perceived lack of talent. I don't think people feel he has lost a step, despite not really playing last year. He's in his prime athletically.

In the post-Ray Rice NFL, teams do not want to give big (guaranteed) dollars to a guy just coming off a domestic violence incident. If he is upset he didn't get a long term deal, he has only himself to blame.

 

[Galian Beast]

I think the fact that he did not get a long term deal has more to do with his status as someone who abuses women than it does with a perceived lack of talent. I don't think people feel he has lost a step, despite not really playing last year. He's in his prime athletically.

In the post-Ray Rice NFL, teams do not want to give big (guaranteed) dollars to a guy just coming off a domestic violence incident. If he is upset he didn't get a long term deal, he has only himself to blame.

If he had played the rest of the season after only facing a two game suspension, and say he makes the pro bowl again at the end of the year, someone would have signed him long term, to think otherwise is silly. Just as after this year in Dallas he will get his long term deal somewhere.

 

[AzorAhai]

They wanted to suspend them for the entire year to avoid a repeat of the ray rice situation. The problem however is that their decision to punish Ray Rice twice and their decision to officially put in a new policy, sent them down a rabbit hole of weak legal arguments, which were already on shaky ground due to the precedence of years of suspensions.

I don't understand how the NFL can even argue that the exempt list isn't a punishment. The easiest way to assess if it's a punishment is can a player say no to going on that list? If the answer to that question is no, then its a punishment and any time on it should be counted as game suspensions served with a fine equal to the amount of games the suspension was for.

It's still a clear victory for the NFL if it would be applied this way. Hardy would in essence have served a 15 game suspension with a 10 game fine, basically completely circumventing the process they should have taken.

 

[Galian Beast]

I don't understand how the NFL can even argue that the exempt list isn't a punishment. The easiest way to assess if it's a punishment is can a player say no to going on that list? If the answer to that question is no, then its a punishment and any time on it should be counted as game suspensions served with a fine equal to the amount of games the suspension was for.

It's still a clear victory for the NFL if it would be applied this way. Hardy would in essence have served a 15 game suspension with a 10 game fine, basically completely circumventing the process they should have taken.

One problem is that they players agreed to it in the first place.

 

[Hoofbite]

That is another bad analysis of what happened.

- NFLPA appealed the use of the exempt list to an arbitrator and cited it as an issue in the brief to Doty
- Judge Doty didn't overturn the suspension he vacated the arbitration award and sent it back for further arbitration
- He didn't say the complaints weren't necessary, he kept his decision as narrow as possible for this particular case and in finding that the arbitration was not dutifully performed he didn't even look at the exterior arguments the NFLPA brought up.

Assuming for a second that Henderson accepted Doty's ruling and arbitrated fairly according to the CBA, he could try and award Hardy a 2 game suspension. Hardy and the NFLPA could then still take this to court to have Doty look at the exempt list issue. And this could have been resolved by now had the NFL gone back to arbitration with Peterson on his suspension, because my guess is that ultimately Doty could find that the exempt list isn't a means to circumvent the regular disciplinary process, and that the NFLPA can only take 3 games finding and 2 games suspension in accordance with precedence, and since they've taken the 2 games from Hardy, they could only give him the fine. And they would need to pay Peterson for the 3 games he was forced to miss.

I would be mistaken then. I was under the impression that the petition was against the 4 points that were in the arbitration.

Ultimately, I think the fact that this issue hasn't been addressed makes for a longer process. Even if Hardy's suspension is reduced, would he possibly have to argue the exempt designation itself which would take more time?

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't understand how the NFL can even argue that the exempt list isn't a punishment. The easiest way to assess if it's a punishment is can a player say no to going on that list? If the answer to that question is no, then its a punishment and any time on it should be counted as game suspensions served with a fine equal to the amount of games the suspension was for.

It's still a clear victory for the NFL if it would be applied this way. Hardy would in essence have served a 15 game suspension with a 10 game fine, basically completely circumventing the process they should have taken.

It seems as if the player can say no. Pretty sure all parties agree to the designation.

"Greg had the option to do this and he took it," Panthers general manager Dave Gettleman said Wednesday. "This is what he chose. This is the option he chose."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000396161/article/panthers-greg-hardy-to-be-put-on-exempt-list

 

[Galian Beast]

I would be mistaken then. I was under the impression that the petition was against the 4 points that were in the arbitration.

Ultimately, I think the fact that this issue hasn't been addressed makes for a longer process. Even if Hardy's suspension is reduced, would he possibly have to argue the exempt designation itself which would take more time?

It would take more time, but at least we could get it down to 2 games first.

This is why Adrian Peterson's part in this isn't over. He also still has a claim to those games that would be considered time served.

 

[joseephuss]

It seems as if the player can say no. Pretty sure all parties agree to the designation.



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000396161/article/panthers-greg-hardy-to-be-put-on-exempt-list

Good point. The player and the team approached the commissioner about using the exempt list in both the Hardy case and the Peterson case.

 

[joseephuss]

The thing I just don't understand is the guy already missed 15 games, it's just that he was paid for them.

Even if they decided they wanted to suspend him 2 games, hasn't he served the suspension already? Just fine him 2 game cheques and let him return to the field. I don't believe the NFL should be able to suspend him more than 2 games according to prior precedents so that should be the end of it.

The Ben Roethlisberger case could be presented as a precedent and that suspension was for more than 2 games.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I imagine it will not amount to much and Greg Hardy will still miss about six games like most people expected.

Hope I am wrong though.

 

[LandryFan]

The teams just wanted those 2 guys to go away because the climate in the country regarding domestic violence last September was pretty hostile.

Suppose I sign a contract with someone where they agree to work for me for a year and I agree to pay them $1 million. But suppose that after a month I change my mind and don't want that person around anymore so I give them their $1 million but tell them to get lost, then that person can't sue to force me to let them do the job they were hired for. (Well, they can sue but they'd lose).

Your analogy doesn't apply, IMO, because in the example you gave, the worker would be free to go elsewhere and ply his talents. In the cases of Hardy and Peterson, they could not. They had no choice but to sit and rust. Extended inactivity for an NFL player can certainly impact their future earnings potential.