Pacman suspended for 2007; Henry suspended 8 games

[Bob Sacamano]

Based on what? The "NFL can't punish players differently" law recently passed in Congress?

:laugh2:

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wouldn't make the argument. I'd simply tell my client it's in his best interests to not ruffle any feathers and to mind his Ps and Qs until his 10 week suspension is up. Then maybe they'll allow him to earn a paycheck for 6 weeks.

They've pretty much got his yahoos in a vice here.

If I was his attorney id look for historical precedents that the NFL has taken and this clearly is way above and beyond the precedents. I dont see how the NFL has a leg to stand on with the Lewis and Little precedents.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

If I was his attorney id look for historical precedents that the NFL has taken and this clearly is way above and beyond the precedents. I dont see how the NFL has a leg to stand on with the Lewis and Little precedents.

there was no NFL ruling encompassing those circumstances then

that's a pretty weak argument, might as well just stick to the due process one

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Based on what? The "NFL can't punish players differently" law recently passed in Congress?

actually they are the equal pay and equal employment protection acts of 1970 and 1972 respectively.

 

[theogt]

If I was his attorney id look for historical precedents that the NFL has taken and this clearly is way above and beyond the precedents. I dont see how the NFL has a leg to stand on with the Lewis and Little precedents.

What does this matter? They can simply change their policies on punishment at any point. There's nothing preventing them.

I think they went way overboard here, but that doesn't mean they can't do it.

 

[peplaw06]

I wouldn't make the argument. I'd simply tell my client it's in his best interests to not ruffle any feathers and to mind his Ps and Qs until his 10 week suspension is up. Then maybe they'll allow him to earn a paycheck for 6 weeks.

They've pretty much got his yahoos in a vice here.

Wait a second... Here sits your client who's looking at a year suspension, 10 games if he completes certain requirements. There's no threat of a longer suspension if you argue that it should be shortened, and if you lose, he can still sit the 10 games, and you can tell him to "mind his Ps and Qs" in either case. There are no repercussions if you argue your case to the league, and you still do nothing? Man that is zealous representation.

If there's no harm in arguing it, then argue it.

 

[theogt]

actually they are the equal pay and equal employment protection acts of 1970 and 1972 respectively.

Are you just pulling this out of your bum?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

actually they are the equal pay and equal employment protection acts of 1970 and 1972 respectively.

:laugh2: :laugh1: equal pay has nothing to do w/ this and equal employment protection is discrimination

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

there was no NFL ruling encompassing those circumstances then

that's a pretty weak argument, might as well just stick to the due process argument

How can you say that? Under the previous conduct policy, they waited for the court decision and then acted. they also gave a suspension of 1/8th of this one for convicted felons. How can you possibly say thats right.

Maybe things like equality arent important to you but they sure as heck are important to me.

 

[peplaw06]

actually they are the equal pay and equal employment protection acts of 1970 and 1972 respectively.

 

[theogt]

Wait a second... Here sits your client who's looking at a year suspension, 10 games if he completes certain requirements. There's no threat of a longer suspension if you argue that it should be shortened, and if you lose, he can still sit the 10 games, and you can tell him to "mind his Ps and Qs" in either case. There are no repercussions if you argue your case to the league, and you still do nothing? Man that is zealous representation.

If there's no harm in arguing it, then argue it.

You'd have to "appeal" to arbitration. Then it stays in the media. It becomes a long drawn out ordeal and Pacman's recent contrition looks a little less genuine. No, I would not force the league and my client into that.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

How can you say that? Under the previous conduct policy, they waited for the court decision and then acted. they also gave a suspension of 1/8th of this one for convicted felons. How can you possibly say thats right.

Maybe things like equality arent important to you but they sure as heck are important to me.

the NFL had no ruling saying that any kind of off-field trouble is actionable for a suspension then, that's why Goodell, with the new rules is "jumping the gun" w/ the suspensions now, they had to wait back then because there was nothing saying they could go ahead and do it before the courts could take action

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:laugh2: :laugh1: equal pay has nothing to do w/ this and equal employment protection is discrimination

they lose cash for being suspended and it is discrimination.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the NFL had no ruling saying that any kind of off-field trouble is actionable for a suspension then, that's why Goodell, with the new rules is "jumping the gun" w/ the suspensions now

the new rules were put in place after the acts in question occurred.

 

[theogt]

I think you just violated the Exploitation of Kittens for Internet Humor Act of 1992.

 

[peplaw06]

they lose cash for being suspended and it is discrimination.

Pray tell how is it discriminatory?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

they lose cash for being suspended and it is discrimination.

:laugh2: discrimination is based on age, sex, race, sexual orientation and a number of other things, getting in trouble w/ the law is not encompassed in the Anti-Discrimination Act

 

[theogt]

they lose cash for being suspended and it is discrimination.

Yes, it is discrimination. But not all discrimination is illegal.

 

[peplaw06]

You'd have to "appeal" to arbitration. Then it stays in the media. It becomes a long drawn out ordeal and Pacman's recent contrition looks a little less genuine. No, I would not force the league and my client into that.

I understand you can do that, but why not exercise all options for the good of your client? Do everything in your power. Hell, he's a millionaire client, he's got the money.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pray tell how is it discriminatory?

Im not arguing that its age, sex, race or disability dicrimination. but they are certainly treating him differently then they did Little and Lewis.