Pacman suspended for 2007; Henry suspended 8 games

[Doomsday101]

My personal perception is as unambiguous as it is color-blind. Hope that helps. He's not going to be perfect in his punishments for infractions both on and off the field. I can only hope that he is willing to do whatever he deems necessary to put a stop to the nonsense in both areas. He's going to have the hypocritic label applied to him. As long as he can generate positive results, I could care less how people feel about him personally.

I agree and surprisingly he has the support of the Players Union and the Owners. When I start seeing players standing up saying enough already and backing this latest suspensions then I think things are starting to move in the right direction.

 

[superpunk]

My personal perception is as unambiguous as it is color-blind. Hope that helps. He's not going to be perfect in his punishments for infractions both on and off the field. I can only hope that he is willing to do whatever he deems necessary to put a stop to the nonsense in both areas. He's going to have the hypocritic label applied to him. As long as he can generate positive results, I could care less how people feel about him personally.

It's not even that I feel anything against him personally.

The punishments are hypocritical, which does reflect on him, but that's secondary.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's a line in their policy that is specifically pointed at this.



In other words, there doesn't have to be criminal guilt for them to act. I think there will be some serious challenges to some of this, but I am not sure they will be successful.

Look at the Duke LaCrosse players rape story. All kinds of action directly affecting those kids, and now all charges are going to be dropped. They were sanctioned without Due Process. Too many in this discussion think the NFL or Duke owe these players Due Process and that has NEVER been the argument.

Due Process simply means that the legal wheels are allowed to turn first before any other action is taken. I was told this is me misusing the term and principle. Nonsense.

Due Process is the driving concept behind innocent until proven guilty. The problem with that is it is great in theory, but often it falls far short of the truth. In most cases I think this falling short is right. For example, accused murderers are not free until a trial finds them guilty. If found not guilty and they are freed what does that say about their incarceration?

I don't believe most challenges of this policy will be successful, but I do believe there are some lawyers who are licking their chops to do exactly that. Pacman's and Henry's lawyers will choose their language carefully and may take their time responding to this, but make no mistake about it, they will respond. It is in the best interests of their clients to do so. One of the main themes will be that judgment upon their clients has been passed without them being afforded Due Process by the government agencies involved in their trangressions and they will argue that all punishments like this should go forward from the point of this decision to enforce and not to be retroactive.

As I have already said, I am not saying these measures will be successful, or that they are right, but I will tell you this, if I were Pacman Jones it is exactly what I would expect my lawyer to be doing for me. It wouldn't matter how guilty I am or how innocent I am of the charges. I would not want to be sanctioned. I'd cling to any action that might reverse this. That is what good lawyers do as I repeatedly said yesterday.

Under the old conduct policy you had to wait. It specifically says that a crime has to be committed and the only entity capable of pinning that on someone is the court. There is new verbage in the CP saying it can be arbitrary.

I know in inurance claims you cannot get into an accident, call up your insurance company to change your coverages and then call in to make a claim on those coverages. Now I dont know about contractual law effective dates and all that excitement but it seems Goodell is trying to backdoor the elimination of waiting on a conviction on this one.

And why is nothing being done about the Porter/Jones thing. They get into a fight in a casino, Porter has an assault charge so where is his suspension. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

People applaud Goodell for this but I think hes allowing ESPN to dictate his policy moreso than himself.

 

[DallasEast]

It's not even that I feel anything against him personally.

The punishments are hypocritical, which does reflect on him, but that's secondary.

Okay. How about if I change it to, "He's going to have the hypocritic label applied to him. As long as he can generate positive results, I could care less how people feel about his professional ethics."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Imus was just going for publicity. Noone has cared about him in over a decade.

 

[superpunk]

Okay. How about if I change it to, "He's going to have the hypocritic label applied to him. As long as he can generate positive results, I could care less how people feel about his professional ethics."

I'm not sure ethics applies. It's about setting a standard, and then going against the standard you've set for no apparent reason.

 

[DallasEast]

I'm not sure ethics applies. It's about setting a standard, and then going against the standard you've set for no apparent reason.

Okay. How about I change it to, "He's going to have the hypocritic label applied to him. As long as he can generate positive results, I could care less how people feel about his doing an end around on previous decisions."

 

[superpunk]

Okay. How about I change it to, "He's going to have the hypocritic label applied to him. As long as he can generate positive results, I could care less how people feel about his doing an end around on previous decisions."

Oh yeah?

Well, I couldn't care less about how people feel he's actually accomplishing something worthwhile with his hypocritical end-arounds.

So there. :

 

[DallasEast]

Oh yeah?

Well, I couldn't care less about how people feel he's actually accomplishing something worthwhile with his hypocritical end-arounds.

So there. :

:laugh2:

 

[Doomsday101]

New day and new precedence is under way with the full support or the players and owners. If Goodell is being hypocritical then the owners and players share in the hypocrisy. No doubt punishment was dealt with in a certain way up till now and has not done anything to halt the same old behavior. Hopefully this will have an impact

 

[superpunk]

New day and new precedence is under way with the full support or the players and owners. If Goodell is being hypocritical then the owners and players share in the hypocrisy. No doubt punishment was dealt with in a certain way up till now and has not done anything to halt the same old behavior. Hopefully this will have an impact

The owners and players don't have anything to do with the suspensions Goodell handed down prior, so there really is no "sharing" in hypocrisy. The commissioner is responsible for punishment, ultimately, so perceived "sharing" is irrelevent and inconsequential.

What impact are you, and anyone else who supports this "fantastic" move hoping this has? How is this impact going to affect how you "consume" football?

 

[YosemiteSam]

*bump* Only because I don't think this thread has enough pages...

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Clean the NFL up.......it should be an honor to play and get paid for football

 

[Hostile]

Under the old conduct policy you had to wait. It specifically says that a crime has to be committed and the only entity capable of pinning that on someone is the court. There is new verbage in the CP saying it can be arbitrary.

I know in inurance claims you cannot get into an accident, call up your insurance company to change your coverages and then call in to make a claim on those coverages. Now I dont know about contractual law effective dates and all that excitement but it seems Goodell is trying to backdoor the elimination of waiting on a conviction on this one.

And why is nothing being done about the Porter/Jones thing. They get into a fight in a casino, Porter has an assault charge so where is his suspension. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

People applaud Goodell for this but I think hes allowing ESPN to dictate his policy moreso than himself.

Good question on Porter. He also had accomplices.

 

[theogt]

After reading this thread I must say it was interesting. Theo...I am sorry I would never hire you to defend me. I hope you stick to being a prosecuter. I got a feeling that if you represented a man in a divorce then he would be lucky to have his clothes on his back. You are supposed to represent the client, not look out for the best interest of the league.

I don't do litigation, criminal or otherwise. But this is why it would suck to be a defense attorney. Sometimes its better to just plead guilty, to throw up the white flag and submit yourself to the mercy of whatever authority you're under. That's often hard to explain to people. Goodell isn't going anywhere. This policy isn't going anywhere for awhile. There's nothing that Pacman can do legally (at least from a Due Process perspective) to get out of this. The best thing, based on the facts as I know them, for him to do is to act contrite and wait it out. After it's all said and done, then he could join some lobbying effort to have the policy changed back. I think the policy is sufficiently flawed that many people will begin to see that in the future. But there's nothing Pacman can do or say right now that will convince people otherwise.

To me this is obvious. The NFL has changed policy. Pacman's conduct happend prior to the policy change. The are attempting to punish him under a new policy, that is a no go. You should argue that under precident set under the OLD policy your client has been unfairly punished.

Ok, I agree with all this. I stated as much throughout the thread. If there wasn't some specific provision in the contract allowing them to be punished under the new guidelines, then it sounds like they might have a good case. I doubt the NFL's lawyers would be so careless, however.

The reason Tags waited on punishing players is also obvious. You can be arrested for almost any little thing.

That was exactly my point earlier in the thread. If they waited to punish them until the new guidelines were in effect, and even if there was a provision applying the new guidelines retroactively, it really looks like there's some bad faith actions on the part of Goodell.

I really think the NFL best interest would be served to let DUE PROCESS run its course before deciding on suspending these players. Godell is just trying to make his mark. I saw this all the time in the military. You never wanted to be the first person to get in trouble with the new commander, he was intentionally hard to try and show he wasn't a push over.

I agree with this 100%. I think they should wait until the person has received due process through the legal system. Goodell and the contingent of the NFLPA that agrees with Goodell don't seem to think so, however, and there's nothing legally requiring them do so.

 

[peplaw06]

Imus has said many insensitive things in the past

He probably has... doesn't mean he's broken the law by doing it.

There's no such thing as being "guilty of free speech." Free speech is a right, not a crime. However if an employer wants to discourage that behavior, it's perfectly within their province to do so... assuming some contract doesn't prevent them taking action.

This is like if you were habitually late to work. It's not against the law to be late for work. But if you do it enough times you might get a warning, then if you continue to do so, you may be punished in some way. Employers aren't without recourse when that happens.

 

[theogt]

He probably has... doesn't mean he's broken the law by doing it.

There's no such thing as being "guilty of free speech." Free speech is a right, not a crime. However if an employer wants to discourage that behavior, it's perfectly within their province to do so... assuming some contract doesn't prevent them taking action.

This is like if you were habitually late to work. It's not against the law to be late for work. But if you do it enough times you might get a warning, then if you continue to do so, you may be punished in some way. Employers aren't without recourse when that happens.

This is the "It's sounds bad, so it must be illegal" principle. It should be applied in all circumstances regardless of the actual law.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Good question on Porter. He also had accomplices.

Porter per Mosley said on ESPN that he wasn't worried about Sheriff Goodell.

 

[Doomsday101]

He probably has... doesn't mean he's broken the law by doing it.

There's no such thing as being "guilty of free speech." Free speech is a right, not a crime. However if an employer wants to discourage that behavior, it's perfectly within their province to do so... assuming some contract doesn't prevent them taking action.

This is like if you were habitually late to work. It's not against the law to be late for work. But if you do it enough times you might get a warning, then if you continue to do so, you may be punished in some way. Employers aren't without recourse when that happens.

I'm not defending him what I'm saying is his action where wrong and the network did what had to be done. Pacman actions have also been very wrong and the NFL finally stood up and did what is right for a change.

 

[Doomsday101]

The owners and players don't have anything to do with the suspensions Goodell handed down prior, so there really is no "sharing" in hypocrisy. The commissioner is responsible for punishment, ultimately, so perceived "sharing" is irrelevent and inconsequential.

What impact are you, and anyone else who supports this "fantastic" move hoping this has? How is this impact going to affect how you "consume" football?

The review panel does have something to do with suspensions it is not Goodell alone. You may feel different but many fans have been turned off by the inaction of Pro Sports in dealing with these thugs all in the name of the dollar. So roll the eyes all you want but some of us long time fans are sick of the thug league and are damn happy to see someone with enough balls to do something about it.