Pacman suspended for 2007; Henry suspended 8 games

[Bob Sacamano]

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

so?

it's still there in writing

 

[peplaw06]

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

Congratulations Fuzzy, you have theo and I on the same side... good luck

Theo I think I'll let you handle this one. Should be easy enough

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so?

it's still there in writing

id be interested to see the actualy verbage.

 

[theogt]

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.

Because I think it's in his best interest to continue this contrition routine whether genuine or not. Goodell's not going anywhere. This policy isn't going anywhere. An arbitrator cannot overrule the policy simply because the court system hasn't ran its course. There's no benefit in making the argument, but there's potential harm.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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

ok, so if I'm in the Army, and the Sergeant only made me do push-ups, am I liable to sue him for discrimination?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Congratulations Fuzzy, you have theo and I on the same side... good luck

Theo I think I'll let you handle this one. Should be easy enough

oh noes!!!! please not that.

this is a discussion not a fight.

 

[peplaw06]

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

Sorry theo I can't resist...

If that's the case, you have to prove there is no rational basis for them treating the two sets of people equally. In other words... if there's a reason, any reason, it's not illegal.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ok, so if I'm in the Army, and the Sergeant only made me do push-ups, am I liable to sue him for discrimination?

the army has particualr rules and rights issues. I think the better analogy would be I come into work every day 5 minutes late and so does suzy.

If my boss fires me for being late and not suzy i would think you have a case.

 

[theogt]

Sorry theo I can't resist...

If that's the case, you have to prove there is no rational basis for them treating the two sets of people equally. In other words... if there's a reason, any reason, it's not illegal.

Well, if it were a state action, yes, but being a private organization, you would have to use the McDonnell-Douglas framework for showing discrimination, which would be impossible here.

 

[peplaw06]

Because I think it's in his best interest to continue this contrition routine whether genuine or not. Goodell's not going anywhere. This policy isn't going anywhere. An arbitrator cannot overrule the policy simply because the court system hasn't ran its course. There's no benefit in making the argument, but there's potential harm.

Well I guess reasonable minds will differ there... Personally I'm fighting for my client. I'm not worried about my "reputation" with the Commissioner. If my client keeps getting in trouble with him, he won't be my client in the future. But right now, I'm trying to reduce the suspension any way I can, whether that's through this argument, or through meeting the requirements to shorten it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

the army has particualr rules and rights issues.

the NFL now has particular rules and rights too

I think the better analogy would be I come into work every day 5 minutes late and so does suzy.

If my boss fires me for being late and not suzy i would think you have a case.

my Army analogy is that not every thing is a discrimination suit

 

[theogt]

Well I guess reasonable minds will differ there... Personally I'm fighting for my client. I'm not worried about my "reputation" with the Commissioner. If my client keeps getting in trouble with him, he won't be my client in the future. But right now, I'm trying to reduce the suspension any way I can, whether that's through this argument, or through meeting the requirements to shorten it.

That's fine. But I don't think you'd bring a Due Process claim, would you? I can see making some sort of nebulous Due Process-like argument, in a very colloquial sense of the term, but not a DPC claim.

 

[peplaw06]

That's fine. But I don't think you'd bring a Due Process claim, would you? I can see making some sort of nebulous Due Process-like argument, in a very colloquial sense of the term, but not a DPC claim.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

can someone post Goodell's plan for Fuzzy, I can't seem to find it

 

[peplaw06]

your image didnt work and im not a lawyer nor do i wish to be so im not coming at this in any condescending manner.

Whether you're coming at this in a condescending manner or not, the fact remains you are often exactly that.

 

[theogt]

Whether you're coming at this in a condescending manner or not, the fact remains you are often exactly that.

*steps in front of peplaw*

*sprays mace at fuzzy*

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the NFL now has particular rules and rights too



my Army analogy is that not every thing is a discrimination suit

id be interested to see aht the actual verbage is in the previous and current conduct policies and whether or not there are any provisions in the CBA that are pertinent to this.

I reality any of us making any conclusions is less than informed.

If they can give a person convicted of killing someone 2 games and give jones this then i think it dramatically unjust.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

*steps in front of peplaw*

*sprays mace at fuzzy*

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whether you're coming at this in a condescending manner or not, the fact remains you are often exactly that.

im sorry if i hurt your feelings in the past.

 

[Hostile]

Here's my original statement to Hostile.

He misused the term. I pointed that out, just as he pointed out Fuzzy's misuse of the term.

He just didn't like it when someone did it to him.

Since we're going all the way back to original statements, let's look at mine that started this portion of the discussion. I mean that is only fair right counselor?

I was responding to a comment about "due process."

Even the due process was'nt violated. As the commissioner gave Pacman a chance to present his case, and then made his decision on the evidence given. The fact that pacman refuses to stay out of trouble got him a suspension. Goodell said it right, the NFL is a privilege not a right. And to many times a player thinks that hes so good, hes above the law. Pacman might be able to get around the law enforcement, but if hes no longer employed by the NFL. Then he will no longer have that protection, and then he might decide to get his head out of his butt, and follow the got dang rules.

And I said...

His lawyers will argue that the Commissioner is not a Judge, and therefore was not afforded "Due Process." I'm not saying they are right. Just telling you what they will do and how they will fight it.

Not bad for a laymen who never clerked for a Judge is it?

From that point forward you have me saying he was not afforded due process, and I NEVER said that. I repeatedly said his LAWYERS will argue that he deserves to have his day in court before the NFL Passes their own judgment.

No matter how many times I said his LAWYERS you couldn't accept it. You were on the carousel and she was spinning fast.