peplaw06;1532103 said:
Then why aren't you letting these other instances "play out?"
Because we don't need to... Jones IS guilty of failing to report two arrests, Henry DID plead guilty to serving alcohol to minors, and spent two days in jail for doing so...
These incidents alone make those players subject to league suspension, there is no doubt of their guilt in these incidents... as a result, there is absolutely no need to wait for the results of the rest of their legal situations; if either is convicted of a serious crime in the near future, then the league can visit further, more stringent punishments on them...
I've only just figured out why Pac-Man got the most extreme sentence-- failing to report two arrests is an attempt to circumvent the Player Conduct Policy, and if he is allowed to get away with it, if he isn't punished HARD for doing so, the rest of the players in the league will be more willing to risk the consequences and fail to report any arrests they might have...
Is it because Goodell has set forth his criteria for laying out a punishment, and what length of punishment is up to his discretion.
He hasn't laid out his criteria in advance because he has said that he feels that it's important to look at each case individually, and fit the punishment to the crime...
While there is a case to be made for defining a clear and consistent punishment schedule for offenses, there is also a danger in that-- you might find yourself forced to deal out an overly harsh suspension for what is a rather minor crime, much like I've read has happened in states where the "three strikes and you're out" policy has become law...
As for laying out his criteria for each individual case, perhaps he isn't allowed to by the rules, much like the reasons for drug suspensions are supposed to be kept confidential...
But what if that guy had actually been convicted before and it was his 2nd or 3rd DUI. If that guy had spent time in prison, and you hadn't before, yet THAT guy had gotten a smaller sentence than you, because he had done time before, would you think that fair??
Uhhh, this is an argument mitigating AGAINST your call for a clear and firm punishment policy... this is calling for the judge to take into consideration all the various factors of a case, just as Goodell is doing...
sure he has. he suspended these guys for things that happened when Tagliabue was commish. Tags didn't suspend them for those actions, and Goodell did. Just because he's authorized to do it doesn't mean it's right.
If they're guilty-- and they are-- then it's entirely right... what, did you think all the players should get a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, just because Tagliabue decided (was forced??) to retire?? That everybody started with a clean slate, and any crimes they might have committed before the retirement are forgiven??
In Henry's case, he'd already pled guilty to two different crimes in since December 2005, according to nfl.com:
Henry, who had a history of problems at West Virginia when the Bengals drafted him last year, has been arrested four times since last December. Two cases have been settled -- he pleaded guilty to marijuana possession in northern Kentucky, and to a weapon charge in Florida. He avoided jail in both cases, but was subject to discipline from the NFL.
http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/CIN/9709627
This was three months before Tags announced his retirement, eight months before Goodell became commissioner... naturally, Goodell would take over any pending disciplinary cases Tagliabue left unresolved... Goodell issued a two game suspension for this one, about two months after taking over... then, Henry pled guilty AGAIN, to providing alcohol to a minor...
Again, this is not an UNRESOLVED court case, this is another GUILTY PLEA... the guy has just been suspended for two games for criminal convictions, then he turns around and pleads guilty to yet ANOTHER crime... what do you EXPECT Goodell to do, how do you EXPECT him to react, if not with another, more severe punishment??
And this crime most assuredly did happen on Goodell's watch... in January of this year, to be exact...
So, ignore those other pending cases, as if they don't exist, and just judge based on the marijuana conviction, the gun charge conviction, and the guilty plea to providing alcohol to minors, all in the last 18 months... consider that he has already been suspended for two games on the first two offenses, and now the Commissioner has to dole out a suspension on the third offenses...
Do you REALLY think that the facts here don't support an 8 game suspension??
Now, we move to Pac-Man's suspension... the root cause of that suspension was not one, but two failures to report arrests, one for obstruction of an officer, the other for marijuana... now, the first case is still pending, the charges on the second were dismissed... but that's not the issue here, it's the FAILURE TO REPORT those arrests that made him subject to suspension (the Titans were unaware of either arrest until more than year after the fact, so it follows that the league was unaware too-- they would have informed the team if they had been told of those arrests):
According to the league's personal conduct policy, the team or the player must report an arrest or a criminal charge to the NFL, and failure to do so is considered detrimental conduct punishable by a four-game suspension without pay.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2791929&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines
There it is, in black and white... note that the FIRST offense is clearly spelled out, a four game suspension... so if Jones had only had the one failure to report, he would have faced just a four game suspension... in this case, the punishment IS clearly spelled out...
But there are no provisions for a SECOND offense, that is apparently left up to the Commissioner's discretion... but if a four game suspension is inevitable for a first offense, it logically follows that a second offense must be punished more severely...
For the record, these arrests occurred in February and March of 2006, again shortly before Tagliabue announced his retirement, and less than six months before Goodell took his place... so once again, we're looking at disciplinary issues that were left over from the old regime, but once again, the change in regimes did not give every player a clean slate... any pending disciplinary issues would-- and should-- become Goodell's problem, so the argument that "it didn't happen on his watch" is beyond asinine...
I guess you never ask questions of people "in power."
I guess you haven't bothered to inform yourself of the facts of these cases, making your questioning of the people "in power" here quite ridiculous... I HAVE informed myself as to the reasons for the suspensions, I HAVE looked at the dates of the offenses, and I have come to the conclusion that no matter what charges are still pending against those two, even if they are completely exonerated on all remaining charges (and how likely is that, really??), the suspensions levied are justified by the acts we KNOW they have committed...
I have laid out those facts for you, now make your case that the suspensions are unwarranted, based on those facts...
I'm not comparing what he's done at this point in time to what Nifong did. I'm saying he could be headed that way. Get that through your thick skull yet?
Do you get that you've offered nothing to support your claim that "he could be headed that way", and absent anything to support that claim, it's nothing more than bovine fecal matter?? For sure, you haven't demonstrated anything CLOSE to malice in what Goodell has done so far, while we know that there was willful malice in Nifong's prosecution of the Duke lacrosse players... so until you can show such malice on Goodell's part, until you can demonstrate that he's not acting in good faith to fulfill the mandate given to him, for you to suggest that he's on a par with Nifong in ANY way is garbage...
No one is above the law sir.
Given that Goodell has broken no laws, has not even been accused of breaking any laws, that comment is beyond ignorant, sir...
NFL precedent does not equal LEGAL precedent. Just because no one challenged whoever that Commish was back then doesn't mean that they acted legally.
Again, you insinuate that Goodell has acted illegally, yet NOBODY connected to this case has made any such insinuation... do tell me how anything Goodell is done is "illegal"...
If you really are a lawyer, then you know good and well that NOTHING he's done in the imposition of discipline, in the levying of suspensions, is "illegal"... he was given the powers he has by collective bargaining, IOW in negotiations between management and labor... that makes his powers quite legal, and as they are spelled out in both the CBA itself and the subsequent Player Conduct Policy (again formulated through negotiations between management and labor), he has done nothing that exceeds his authority...
So again, if you're gonna insinuate that Goodell has acted illegally in this, your first order of business is to explain exactly how ANYTHING he's done is illegal... your second order of business is to explain why, if what he's done is illegal, nobody representing the players has challenged him court... instead, I could easily offer you numerous player quotes SUPPORTING this crackdown...
Now, do you REALLY think that the players would support something that is not only illegal, but could possibly carry dire consequences for each one of them down the line??
It's not that Goodell has pulled a Nifong yet. It's that he could. I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about that.
And once again, my response is the same-- what Nifong did was ILLEGAL, and has landed him in deep legal hot water... NOTHING Goodell has done is ILLEGAL, and it's beyond ridiculous for you to argue that he MIGHT decide to go down the illegal road sometime in the future... you have made NO argument to defend that assertion, and you cannot make one that renders that argument anything other than the most idiotic of speculation, indeed nothing more than an exercise in asinine, inflammatory HYPERBOLE...
I thought Goodell was the NFL? At least his actions are representative of the NFL. Ever hear of respondeat superior? lemme guess... No??
It's a doctrine that holds that an employer is responsible for the actions of an employee taken in the course of his or her employment... now, how it's relevant to anything here, given that I have never denied that his actions represent the league, I'm not quite sure...
In your opinion. It's a guess on your part as well. You guess that he won't pull a Nifong.
Perhaps that's because there's a total lack of evidence that he WILL...
Do you think your argument that "he might pull a Nifong" would carry ANY weight with a judge??
Here's your problem silverbear... You, much like many of your DVS counterparts, are thinking about things in the wrong order. I know you love the NFL, as do I, but you think the NFL is above the law.
Uhhh, no I don't... my argument is much simpler, that the NFL and Goodell have broken no laws... that Collective Bargaining Agreement is quite LEGAL, as is the subsequent Player Conduct Policy... if it was, you can bet that the attorneys for Jones and Henry and Johnson would be challenging their suspensions in court... the fact they're not ought to tip you off that you're simply WRONG in even hinting that the NFL has acted "above the law" here...
If the CEO of your company was authorized in his contract to deny rights from the company's employees, and he subsequently did so, would you stand by and watch.
Again, with a ridiculous comparison... at least, it's ridiculous until and unless you can demonstrate that the NFL is denying Jones and Henry their rights under the CBA...
But just to play along, I'll answer your question-- first off, the CEO of my company's authority would not have been determined by COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, as Goodell's was (actually, in my case the CEO is the owner, so he has no contract)... so your analogy breaks down right there... but even if he didn't, if he acted to deny rights from the company's employees, we'd get together and take him to court over it...
Seen anybody taking Goodell to court to challenge the legality of his authority?? ANY of his employees??
Nope, you haven't, so now that specious argument has broken down on two different levels...
The difference between us, is that I think that even a minor denial of rights could lead to something more egregious at a later time. You think that it's just a minor thing now, so let's not worry about it. If something worse happens later, THEN I'll care.
Again, you mischaracterize my argument, in effect assuming facts not in evidence...
I'm not content with this situation because I think it's a "minor thing", I'm content with it because I think it's the RIGHT thing... I think it's right both because it's necessary, and because Goodell was given the authority via COLLECTIVE BARGAINING to do what he's done...
And one more time, the final proof that he's acting within his authority is that NOBODY IS CHALLENGING what he's done in court...
He has the contractual authority, under the CBA. But the legal authority?
Absolutely YES, unless you can demonstrate that the CBA violates the law...
Can you demonstrate that??
I think Due Process says otherwise. Wrong. Congress doesn't always step in when someone oversteps his legal authority. It has to be pretty egregious. Goodell's not there yet. Doesn't mean he won't get there.
Hey, if he overstepped his authority, I'd rather expect the aggrieved parties to challenge it, long before Congress decided to step in... indeed, there would be no need at all for Congress to step in, unless there were some allegations of wrongdoing, and so far, there simply are no such allegations...
You're "offended" that a lawyer thinks an argument could be made?
No, I'm offended that a lawyer would make such a weak argument, utterly lacking in anything of substance... and thus far, you have offered absolutely NOTHING that could legitimately be taken as a cause of action against Goodell and the NFL... there are no aggrieved parties here, yet you've appointed yourself their spokesman...
How ridiculous is THAT??
I'll tell you what, Don Quixote de la Mancha, if you're such a champion of the rights of the poor, downtrodden players, file a class action suit on their behalf... let's see how far you get...
You don't have to be malicious in your intent to do something wrong.
No, you don't... but YOU invoked the name of Nifong in this thread, YOU drew that comparison... and what Nifong did was most assuredly malicious, sufficiently malicious that it caused him to be disbarred...
I'm just responding to YOUR argument, counselor...
Lots of people have broken the law honestly thinking they were doing something right, just because they didn't know any better. Tags was a lawyer. Goodell's not.
And the league office doesn't have ANY lawyers to advise him... he just up and decided what he was gonna do all on his own, without consulting the league's lawyers as to the legality of those actions...
Your arguments are so ridiculous they'd be comical, if you weren't a lawyer... the fact that you are makes them contemptible, because you KNOW there is no illegality here...
And why do I have to wait until public opinion is squarely against him before I can criticize him?
Oh, you don't... but it would be nice if there was some legitimate basis for your criticisms...
There isn't...
I think he's treading on the fall line of a snow covered mountain where if he starts to slide down, he could gain momentum, and create an avalanche.
And I think that's a comical piece of hyperbole, based on an imperfect (or nonexistent) grasp of the facts behind these latest suspensions...
Could he see the error of his ways and change?
There simply IS no "error of his ways" here... absolutely everything he's done is both legal, and morally justifiable...
Ahh, the old "the majority agrees with me so I must be right argument." Superpunk's favorite might I add. Forgive me if I don't give this any weight. I like to form my own opinions.
Having seen the lack of logic and reason behind your opinions, I'm less than impressed with this declaration of how independent-minded you are... independent thought isn't worth a whole lot if it leads you to asinine conclusions...
It's a quote genius. And a rather well-known one at that. It's not meant to be taken literally. I thought a pseudo-intellectual like yourself would have picked up on that.
It's a stupid use of the quote, in this context, because there is no "evil" here... but don't be so foolish as to assume I hadn't heard the quote before, indeed I have used it in argument my own self, a time or two...
*Sigh* See the previous arguments.
1) I didn't say Goodell = Nifong.
How very disingenuous of you... you have said that Goodell might be heading down the Nifong road, a number of times now... this presumes that his motivations are the same as Nifong's were, and you know it...
2) Goodell doesn't have the "legal right" to withhold due process. He has the contractual right.... big difference.
Not if the CONTRACT is LEGAL... in that case, contractual right equals legal right...
And thus far, you haven't even come CLOSE to demonstrating that the contract is illegal...
You don't see where he passed judgment?? Well let's see. The guys are facing legal issues, criminal charges etc. Because their facing these charges, he has decided to suspend them... and you don't think that passes judgment?
Well, that's just an out and out LIE... I have outlined early in this response exactly why both Jones and Henry were suspended, and it has absolutely nothing to do with ANY pending cases...
No, he's definitely being objective on the whole matter
As far as I'm concerned, the suspensions levied are eminently justifiable, both on legal and moral grounds...
Is it too much to ask for Goodell to have some sentencing guidelines?
Apparently, labor and management decided it was best to leave that up to his discretion... and who are YOU to dispute their judgement, when they're the most directly concerned parties??
There is an argument to be made for sentencing guidelines, but there is also a danger in that, which is an argument for leaving the disposition of each individual case up to the discretion of the commissioner, who has the facts that we don't... you don't know what those facts are (indeed, you didn't even seem to know the facts that I shared with you about the reasons behind the suspensions), so you are utterly unqualified to pass judgement on whether or not those suspensions are either legitimate, or overly harsh...
Basically, you're arguing the merits of two different cases without even knowing the FACTS of those cases...
If Mike Vick faces charges, and Goodell wants to suspend him for one game, do you have a problem? How about 2 years? problem then? 4 years?
Given that NOBODY has been suspended for "facing charges", that's a completely bogus hypothetical... it simply hasn't happened yet, so you have no reason to believe it will in the future...
What's the point you think Goodell oversteps his bounds?
When he oversteps the authority granted him by the CBA and the Personal Conduct Policy...
That was easy... LOL...
What stops him from doing any of the above?
The CBA, and the Personal Conduct Policy... as long as he stays within the confines outlined in those documents, he's golden... if he strays from those confines, THEN-- and ONLY then-- I'll join you in criticizing him...
But I'm not gonna trash the guy for things he hasn't done, things he hasn't even shown a predisposition to do... which is the REAL difference between us-- you're anticipating all these doomsday scenarios, without having any REAL reason to anticipate them, while I'm not gonna run out and assume the worst about the guy when there is a an absence of reason to make such an assumption...
I know SP... I shouldn't have given them the satisfaction of responding.
Not if this lame crapola is all you have to bring to the table...
Oh well. I guess I'm insane.:laugh2:
I don't know about insane, but I'm sure not impressed with you as a lawyer...
