On the Mark: Goodell Changing the Rules

[Vintage]

IIRC, he did fly the dirty bird for all to see...

Sarcasm?

 

[Idgit]

LOL. Yeah, I'm sure Pacman is pretty PO'd right about now. He's probably thinking, "If only I had tortured dogs instead of went to a strip club!" Or maybe, "If only I were more famous, Goodell might let me keep my paycheck!"

Pacman isn't suspended for going to a strip club, by the way.
And Goodell's responsibility in this situation is not to Michael Vick.

 

[Seven]

Personally maybe Vick should think...Hey I did not get suspended like the other guys. I am getting paid right now.

See I suspected something would be different with Vick because he is a franchise QB for a team. Not saying a Good QB.

It could turn out he get suspended later, could be the Falcons release him, but right now they are saying stay away from camp and you get your regular pay.

So, unlike the other guys, he is not suspended without pay.

From what I understand, anybody suspended from TC is "not suspended without pay." Don't they start getting paid when the season starts?

 

[Seven]

The problem is that Goodell should have been smart enough to let it **appear** that Vick was making the decision for himself.

Instead he comes out with this "it's my responsibility to kick you out" BS.

What's the difference? Goodell should "buffer" the obvious so he doesn't look like a czar? How about this never happened and Goodell's not involved at all? Gee......................

NONE of this should be diverted into Goodells "fault bin". As I see it, he was minding his own business and had a mess dumped in his lap. A federal indictment is grounds enough to warrant an NFL sanctioned action.

Differentiate the legalities of the real world and the responsibility of the athlete to adhere to policies of the NFL. Two seperate entities.

 

[peplaw06]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7052158
In a letter to the quarterback, he explained that due process is a constitutional right for the accused, not a privilege accorded to those with a roster spot: "While it is for the criminal justice system to determine your guilt or innocence, it is my responsibility as commissioner of the National Football league to determine whether your conduct, even if not criminal, nonetheless violated league policies, including the Personal Conduct Policy."

Translation: It's a Constitutional right for the accused, but I know better than the Constitution, and "Whatevah!! Whatevah!! I'll do what I want!"

 

[cowboyfreak]

Sarcasm?

I wasn't sure if it was or not because I didn't
know that he'd ever been arrested

 

[Vintage]

Translation: It's a Constitutional right for the accused, but I know better than the Constitution, and "Whatevah!! Whatevah!! I'll do what I want!"

 

[Jarv]

Translation: It's a Constitutional right for the accused, but I know better than the Constitution, and "Whatevah!! Whatevah!! I'll do what I want!"

Because he can, come on, your a lawyer. Did Goodell break any laws ?

Where in the Constitution does it say a NFL commish can't suspend a player with pay ???

 

[theogt]

Because he can, come on, your a lawyer. Did Goodell break any laws ?

Where in the Constitution does it say a NFL commish can't suspend a player with pay ???

"Because I can."

That's such a persuasive argument for taking a particular action. What was I thinking?

 

[Vintage]

"Because I can."

That's such a persuasive argument for taking a particular action. What was I think?

Excellent question.

"What was I think?"

 

[theogt]

Excellent question.

"What was I think?"

Edited, turd.

 

[peplaw06]

Because he can, come on, your a lawyer. Did Goodell break any laws ?

Where in the Constitution does it say a NFL commish can't suspend a player with pay ???

Correction: "Whateveh!! Whatevah!!! I'll do what I want!! Because I can!!

I never said Goodell broke any laws.

 

[superpunk]

Translation: It's a Constitutional right for the accused, but I know better than the Constitution, and "Whatevah!! Whatevah!! I'll do what I want!"

Goodell is well within his rights in everything he's doing. Being with his rights does not make him right, however, in the manner he handles things. Apparently, Upshaw deemed it necessary to grant him that power a few years back, so now we have a situation where Goodell can basically do whatever he wants (with or without rhyme/reason) with no consistency.

I thought he was inconsistent and hypocritical before, but I suppose contrition and other things we aren't privy to might have come into his decision making process.

I thought his priorities were screwed up before - but I guess on-field assault and steroid abuse (recognizing the punishments are non-negotiable) are less important to football fans and the media pressure than assaulting strip club employees and owning unregistered weapons. And within that range of players committing offenses, a player who served time for an offense was punished harsher than a player who (IIRC) hasn't even been charged with a crime. But hey - maybe it was the track record - after all - one player had been a blight on the league since his beginning in it.

But now, you've got a guy who's been (a) a blight on the league, (b) is accused of doing something (I think people consider) far more heinous than owning unregistered guns, and (c) has received a federal indictment (from what I've read - that's serious **** in this case) - Yet he is merely asked (so far) to stay away from training camp, whereas priors have been suspended without pay for 8 games or more.

Where is the rational explanation for how these incidents relate to each other? I realize each situation is unique, but the punishments should be consistent and fair, no? I think so. But then, I'm not a huge fan of unchecked dictatorships - no matter how terrible a person the victims of said power has shown themselves to be.

 

[Jarv]

"Because I can."

That's such a persuasive argument for taking a particular action. What was I thinking?

Maybe it is something to think about theogt.

Because the Commish can is a valid answer. He can because that is the rules agreed to by the teams, players and players association.

The other side of the argument is that the commish couldn't if Vick wasn't brought up on charges, maybe that is something you and Vick should have thought of before you cry in your beer.

Think about it, can the commish suspend Romo now ? No ! Why not, he was not brought up on henious charges.

Vick was so he can.

The persuasive argument was not to get indited.

 

[theogt]

Maybe it is something to think about theogt.

Because the Commish can is a valid answer. He can because that is the rules agreed to by the teams, players and players association.

The other side of the argument is that the commish couldn't if Vick wasn't brought up on charges, maybe that is something you and Vick should have thought of before you cry in your beer.

Think about it, can the commish suspend Romo now ? No ! Why not, he was not brought up on henious charges.

Vick was so he can.

The persuasive argument was not to get indited.

Dude, no one is crying in their beer. Because I can isn't an argument. Well, it's a childish argument. There are certainly other arguments to be made, but that isn't one of them. Just thought I'd clue you in. No need to cry in your beer over it, though.

 

[Jarv]

Dude, no one is crying in their beer. Because I can isn't an argument. Well, it's a childish argument. There are certainly other arguments to be made, but that isn't one of them. Just thought I'd clue you in. No need to cry in your beer over it, though.

Maybe you are right, it is not an argument.

Like when I deal with my kids and they say something isn't fair, thats not an argument either although they wish it was.

 

[peplaw06]

Maybe it is something to think about theogt.

Because the Commish can is a valid answer. He can because that is the rules agreed to by the teams, players and players association.

The other side of the argument is that the commish couldn't if Vick wasn't brought up on charges, maybe that is something you and Vick should have thought of before you cry in your beer.

Think about it, can the commish suspend Romo now ? No ! Why not, he was not brought up on henious charges.

Vick was so he can.

The persuasive argument was not to get indited.

Can you point me to the section in the CBA or Player Conduct policy where it states that the Commish can when you are indicted, or are brought up on heinous charges?

My problem with the whole thing is that it doesn't say anything like that, as far as I know. It says, "for conduct deemed detrimental to the league." Well whoopty freakin do? What is conduct detrimental? And who deems it detrimental? Oh that's right, the Commish gets to decide.

Have any of you ever had problems trying to read and/or interpret some kind of legal document (i.e. a contract, a divorce decree, etc)? The problems usually arise (and suits to challenge those documents are filed) when there is some ambiguity in the terms. That's why the things are so freakin long.

You can't get more ambiguous than this. Well, save for maybe Ace and Gary.

The Commish decides what is and what isn't "conduct detrimental to the league."

At least in the legal realm there are things called, sentencing guidelines and ranges of punishment. Hell in our system of government, there are checks and balances between the three branches. What are the guidelines for Goodell? What are the checks and balances on him?

Do you know why those things were created? Because people with unchecked power tend to be inherently untrustworthy.

I think Goodell needs some checks. And I think if most of you were honest with yourself, and not so hellbent on PUNISHING THE THUGS!! you'd agree.

 

[Stash]

Can you point me to the section in the CBA or Player Conduct policy where it states that the Commish can when you are indicted, or are brought up on heinous charges?

My problem with the whole thing is that it doesn't say anything like that, as far as I know. It says, "for conduct deemed detrimental to the league." Well whoopty freakin do? What is conduct detrimental? And who deems it detrimental? Oh that's right, the Commish gets to decide.

Have any of you ever had problems trying to read and/or interpret some kind of legal document (i.e. a contract, a divorce decree, etc)? The problems usually arise (and suits to challenge those documents are filed) when there is some ambiguity in the terms.

You can't get more ambiguous than this. Well, save for maybe Ace and Gary.

The Commish decides what is and what isn't "conduct detrimental to the league."

At least in the legal realm there are things called, sentencing guidelines and ranges of punishment. Hell in our system of government, there are checks and balances between the three branches. What are the guidelines for Goodell? What are the checks and balances on him?

Do you know why those things were created? Because people with unchecked power tend to be inherently untrustworthy.

I think Goodell needs some checks. And I think if most of you were honest with yourself, and not so hellbent on PUNISHING THE THUGS!! you'd agree.

I agree with you in principle.

There needs to be a clearer 'Code of Conduct' for the league and the commissioner to enforce.

Given the lack of clear rules, the Commish can basically do whatever he wants.

That said, two things occur to me:

1) Given the number of offenses possible, coming up with a solid rulebook can't be easy.

and

2) None of the guys who have been punished haven't deserved it. (at least in my opinion.

My thinking is that this process is still in its' infancy and hopefully a system of guidelines is being worked on.

 

[5Stars]

Can you point me to the section in the CBA or Player Conduct policy where it states that the Commish can when you are indicted, or are brought up on heinous charges?

My problem with the whole thing is that it doesn't say anything like that, as far as I know. It says, "for conduct deemed detrimental to the league." Well whoopty freakin do? What is conduct detrimental? And who deems it detrimental? Oh that's right, the Commish gets to decide.

Have any of you ever had problems trying to read and/or interpret some kind of legal document (i.e. a contract, a divorce decree, etc)? The problems usually arise (and suits to challenge those documents are filed) when there is some ambiguity in the terms.

You can't get more ambiguous than this. Well, save for maybe Ace and Gary.

The Commish decides what is and what isn't "conduct detrimental to the league."

At least in the legal realm there are things called, sentencing guidelines and ranges of punishment. Hell in our system of government, there are checks and balances between the three branches. What are the guidelines for Goodell? What are the checks and balances on him?

Do you know why those things were created? Because people with unchecked power tend to be inherently untrustworthy.

I think Goodell needs some checks. And I think if most of you were honest with yourself, and not so hellbent on PUNISHING THE THUGS!! you'd agree.

peplaw...guilty or not guilty as of now, don't you think that this fiasco will be "detrimental to the league" if Vick were to be allowed to play this season?

Can you IMAGINE the the cluster-**** that would go on at every Falcon game? I mean really...let Vick play?

What about NFL revenues that would get lost? Things of that nature is what is detrimental to the league, as it stands today.

If you had to make the decision on whether Vick could play this year, how would you prepare/handle the backlash that would absoutely start tarnishing the NFL, the Falcons and basically football in general?

What would be your plan...

 

[peplaw06]

peplaw...guilty or not guilty as of now, don't you think that this fiasco will be "detrimental to the league" if Vick were to be allowed to play this season?

Can you IMAGINE the the cluster-**** that would go on at every Falcon game? I mean really...let Vick play?

What about NFL revenues that would get lost? Things of that nature is what is detrimental to the league, as it stands today.

If you had to make the decision on whether Vick could play this year, how would you prepare/handle the backlash that would absoutely start tarnishing the NFL, the Falcons and basically football in general?

What would be your plan...

Well if you really want to play with interpretations, I think a lot of things are "detrimental to the league." I think TO is probably detrimental to the league. I think bad QB play is detrimental to the league. But you're not going to go suspending people for being a jerk and playing bad are you? That would be ridiculous.... not that that's stopped anyone before.

These guys conduct has been detrimental to the league, no question. but there are a lot of things that are detrimental to the league. There needs to be more specificity in the policy.

I also think a possible case of someone wrongfully accused who gets punished and later exonerated would be detrimental to the league. Hasn't happened yet, and not saying it will here, but if Goodell starts suspending people for indictments and someone is later exonerated that will be conduct detrimental... is he then going to suspend himself?

If there was a policy in place that stated that no one would face league punishment until all the facts were known and hashed out in the justice system, I don't think there would be this pressure from outside groups, as long as you were consistent. PETA could scream until their blue in the face, but if I have a consistent policy that I am confident in, then they can blow it out their ***. And maybe some of em would back off because that's the policy, and that's what we're going with.

With the pressure outside groups can exert in this current policy, it puts an economic factor into "conduct detrimental." That shouldn't be the main concern, and in this case, i think it is. Goodell's more concerned about his bottom line than he is with Vick's legal rights. A strongly worded, consistent policy would take care of that IMO.