Pacman's Argument on Appeal

[dargonking999]

How did you do?

Don't lie now! What is your GPA?


:laugh2:


Don't lie, fool! You will only be lying to yourself!


I would say that you have a 2.4...


:laugh2:

3.56 First honors my friend. Try again next year

 

[silverbear]

The thing is, Theogt, is he doesn't have to establish any guidelines as to what to expect. From reading the policy, it's all at the discretion of the Commish. They've got a basic fine and discipline schedule in place, but it still comes at the discretion of the Commish.

And it was done with the blessing of the NFLPA. Their bad.

The only way it can be changed is thru more negotiating of the CBA.

Exactly right, those three little letters are the key to the whole thing-- CBA...

Labor (the NFLPA), in negotiations with management (the NFL) GAVE the Commissioner the power to do these things... as a result, it is perfectly legal for him to do so...

 

[silverbear]

There is no double standard. In those 283 inceidents, how many ended up in the newspaper. How many ended up on the News? Bottom line, they may use that as "Official reasons" but that doesn't mean that there were'nt other factors that were involved in this descion.

To even think that those 4 things, are the only reasons why he has a 1 year suspension is pure stupidty.

Actually, it comes down to TWO little things, that Pac-Man and has lawyers simply can't get around... they MIGHT be able to make a case that you can't suspend the guy for an ARREST, without a CONVICTION... IOW, if Goodell had waited until after the guy had been convicted, then a suspension would have been legit...

HOWEVER, there is absolutely no getting around the fact he was arrested twice, and failed to report it to the league, as is clearly required... he can be suspended for that, and as others have noted, the length of the suspension is entirely up to the Commissioner... the unspoken implication was if he's not convicted on any of those pending court cases, the suspension could be as little as 10 games, not a whole season...

To me, this is throwing Jones a bone, or perhaps a better metaphor would be dangling a carrot in front of his nose...

 

[big dog cowboy]

you are absoultely right about Goodell not necessarily putting a whole lot of thought into the process

I still don't understand that thinking. He knew what he was doing. Anyone is fooling themselves if they think he didn't.

 

[silverbear]

I do not advocate dog fighting. What ever you read, you might wanna read again. Cause I've said many times, i do not advocate dog fighting. So please, don't attempt to bring down my name

For somebody who doesn't condone that barbaric practice, you sure did come off like an advocate of it... you know perfectly well you had a LOT of people either mad at you, or disappointed in you, for what you said...

I see that others have reposted what you said at the time, so there's no need to belabor it with you... your stance regarding Vick was simply inexcusable...

Mind you, this is coming from somebody who always liked you, so I fell more into the "disappointed in you" category...

 

[silverbear]

I don't know but below post sure seems like you are condoning dog fighting to me.


http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1496089&postcount=35

Sure sounds like a defense of dog fighting to me too, dargon...

But perhaps you were having a bad day, or had a point that you just stated clumsily... if you'd like to renounce the post that's giving you all these problems, and condemn Michael Vick for participating in such barbarity, those of us who think you're a good guy would feel a lot better, and perhaps your critics will cut you some slack...

But saying you don't condone it, after writing what you wrote, is talking out of both sides of your mouth...

 

[silverbear]

I was making a point.

The only point I can see is you think dog fighting ought to be legal... which is quite asinine, bluntly, especially when you compare it to boxing...

Boxers CHOOSE to be in the ring, and they're not starved beforehand... dogs have no such choice, and are subjected to much worse than starvation to put them in the proper killer mood...

BIG difference, my man...

I came back again and again, and said i don't condone dog fighting.

Unless you strongly renounce the words that are now haunting you, all your protestations to the contrary don't mean jack...

You can say whatever you want. but you were wrong, and sometimes it's best to let the matter die, instead of continually attempt to prove someone wrong.

And sometimes it's best to stand up and say "I said a really dumb thing, and I wish I hadn't"... until and unless you do just that, few of us are gonna be inclined to except your self-serving protestations of innocence...

Dog fighting IS illegal, I'm sure even you don't dispute that (except in Georgia, for some reason)... this suggests that the law considers there's something wrong with it... so if Michael Vick is involved in this ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, and there seems to be little doubt there is, then he's wrong to do so... in fact, he's a piece of excrement for being involved in it...

Seems the only way you can extricate from this hole you've dug for yourself is to say just that-- Michael Vick is a piece of garbage for owning a home that was actually a center for breeding and training dogs to fight each other to the death...

 

[dargonking999]

Ok, well SB, i did make a post in another thread, saying that i failed to do some reasurch into the subject of dog fighting, and made some unfair comparsions to it. And yes, probably did say some stupid things. It was my fault for talking when i didn't reasurch into both area's of the field. I think that my hatred for America's politics, and there apporach to alot of things, had me speaking wrongly. And i do wish i could retract a few things i said, but hey, what's done is done, i move on. But i still dont' condone dog fighting . Now i just have the same fiery stance as you guys

 

[dargonking999]

hopefully i cleared everything up without the need of quotes. Cause its late and im lazy. and i dont wanna read anymore lol

 

[silverbear]

I know he isn't required to legally. But he should. Like I said, this isn't a legal defense or argument, it's just a public opinion appeal. It's not that it even has to sway public opinion, but if the lawyers can make a sound argument in this context it won't look good for the Commish.

It looks just fine to me... in fact, I suspect most football fans want to see the league put a stop to the criminal behavior that their players seem to be caught up in with increasing frequencey...

As far as I'm concerned, if you're convicted of a felony, you forfeit the right to make millions of dollars playing professional football... so I say go for it, Goodell... slap a few of these punks down, and keep doing it until they start to take you serious...

I'm SICK of the punks dominating the sports page...

Not quite sure if there are many multiple offenders listed. Remember that 2 of Pacman's reasons are for lack of reporting and none of these show whether they were reported in a timely manner.

Actually, they show pretty clearly that HE never reported it AT ALL... they found out about it from outside sources...

Again, Goodell isn't necessarily legally required to establishish clear guidelines, but public opinion won't clearly be in his pocket on this issue.

I think you're very, very wrong about that... I think a VAST majority of the public approves of what he's doing...

Eroding public opinion would result in eroding opinion within the league

What erodes public opinion is reading story after story after story about some punk sociopath acting like the law doesn't apply to him, just because he happens to be an NFL player... I have friends who seriously don't watch football any more, guys who were once just about as hard-core in their fandom as I am, because they're sick of watching punks get away with breaking the law, then putting on the shoulder pads on Sunday...

This is precisely why Goodell was given a mandate to clean this crap up, and you should be applauding him for it... it isn't "right", you say?? Well, is it "right" for Michael Vick to be fighting dogs?? Is it right for Tank Johnson to keep illegal weapons?? Is it right for Pac-Man to get arrested every other day??

If you don't stand up to them, they won't stop... period...

 

[silverbear]

I think he realizes the league isn't open to a credible lawsuit, because it simply isn't. I think he rashly assumed that his "whatever I say goes" policy that invariably results in double standards would be more beneficial and publicly accepted than some other more definite policy. That was foolish on his part.

I dunno, I see a LOT more people siding with him on these message boards, than I see criticizing him...

 

[silverbear]

The events Pacman was suspended for took place during the same time as those other 283 incidents -- i.e., before Goodell and his new policy came into place. It's fine that you think Pacman should be held to a different standard, but I'd just like to know why.

Because you gotta start SOMEWHERE... might as well be with the guy who's basically the poster child for punk behavior by NFL players...

Can you name anybody else in the league with a rap sheet as long as his?? So if you're gonna go after criminal behavior, it makes perfect sense to go after the biggest offender first...

Besides, he's not being held to a different standard, other players have either already been suspended, or face likely suspension in the near future... the standard is the same for every player in the NFL, and is clearly spelled out...

My daddy raised me to believe that a man's actions have consequences, and if you're not prepared to accept the consequences of a particular action, you should think long and hard before doing it... he was actually VERY big on lecturing me about such things, and of course he was right...

So excuse me if I don't feel sorry for poor, persecuted Pac-Man Jones... it just may be that by suspending him, Goodell will send him a wake-up call, and maybe he won't one day wake up in a prison...

 

[silverbear]

I think you are wrong and is assuming. Goddell had to have a plan that was acceptable for NFLPA and we all know NFLPA is all about protecting players, which means, it wasn't in haste nor poorly planned.

Indeed, I've read quotes from assorted union representatives that suggest the NFLPA is very much in favor of cracking down on the criminal element... they're smart enough to realize they risk killing the goose that laid the golden egg...

 

[silverbear]

I don't blame Goodell; you are absoultely right about Goodell not necessarily putting a whole lot of thought into the process, but I think Goodell wanted to try and put a stop to all this nonsense; Tagliabue never had to deal with the volume of player-related incidents such as this, and Goodell has just had this sprung on him out of left field... I was hoping that the players would realize that they have to keep their noses clean, but I guess that is not happening.

Well, in a way it's understandable... NFL players have been the star athletes all their lives, pampered and protected... in addition, they play a VERY violent game... so combine a sense of privilege that comes with celebrity and a whole bunch of money (which many of them never had before) with a predisposition toward violent behavior, and it's not surprising that many of them get into fights in bars, punch their wives, fight dogs, carry guns, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum... they're NFL players, for God's sake, the rules of decent society don't apply to THEM...

But while it's understandable from a purely psychological viewpoint, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE... SOMETHING has to be done to put a stop to it, and I'd suggest that the single most effective deterrent for these guys would be the prospect of losing all that MONEY... no more lap dances, no more bling, no more flashy cars... back to the bad old days, when they had nothing...

 

[big dog cowboy]

Can you name anybody else in the league with a rap sheet as long as his??

Chris Henry?

 

[silverbear]

Ok, well SB, i did make a post in another thread, saying that i failed to do some reasurch into the subject of dog fighting, and made some unfair comparsions to it. And yes, probably did say some stupid things. It was my fault for talking when i didn't reasurch into both area's of the field.

I'm really sorry I missed that post, and I'm glad to see this one... I really was very, very disappointed in what you said then... others have said similar things on some of the other message boards I haunt, and I happily ripped them a new anal orifice, but I couldn't bring myself to rip on you that way...

And i do wish i could retract a few things i said

I think you just did... good for you... I am now officially off your case, ol' buddy...

I'd also suggest to the rest of those giving him a hard time about what he said that it's hard to get a clearer mea culpa than he just offered, so maybe we should all lighten up on him...

 

[theogt]

It looks just fine to me... in fact, I suspect most football fans want to see the league put a stop to the criminal behavior that their players seem to be caught up in with increasing frequencey...

I suspect most football fans want to put a stop to criminal behavior as well. I'm not saying Pacman shouldn't be suspended. I'm not saying others shouldn't be. I'm just saying there should be clear rules set up so that people know what is suspendable behavior and what isn't. That would go a lot further in preventing criminal behavior than Goodell's policy of only punishing those that the media concentrates on.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're convicted of a felony, you forfeit the right to make millions of dollars playing professional football... so I say go for it, Goodell... slap a few of these punks down, and keep doing it until they start to take you serious...

I'm SICK of the punks dominating the sports page...

That's fine that you're sick of it. I don't really care, nor do many others care that you're sick of it.

Actually, they show pretty clearly that HE never reported it AT ALL... they found out about it from outside sources...

I'm not sure what you're replying to here. You must have misread my post.

I think you're very, very wrong about that... I think a VAST majority of the public approves of what he's doing...

Again, they approve of suspending people for criminal behavior, but the "VAST majority" would probably like there to be some guidelines. Why are some people punished but others not?

What erodes public opinion is reading story after story after story about some punk sociopath acting like the law doesn't apply to him, just because he happens to be an NFL player... I have friends who seriously don't watch football any more, guys who were once just about as hard-core in their fandom as I am, because they're sick of watching punks get away with breaking the law, then putting on the shoulder pads on Sunday...

This is precisely why Goodell was given a mandate to clean this crap up, and you should be applauding him for it... it isn't "right", you say?? Well, is it "right" for Michael Vick to be fighting dogs?? Is it right for Tank Johnson to keep illegal weapons?? Is it right for Pac-Man to get arrested every other day??

If you don't stand up to them, they won't stop... period...

No, you don't. You're full of it. You're lying to make a point. And if you're not, who cares? Viewership is constantly growing. If your friends stop watching, who cares?

I dunno, I see a LOT more people siding with him on these message boards, than I see criticizing him...

Great. I see a lot of people criticizing him for double standards and not establishing clear guidelines.

Because you gotta start SOMEWHERE... might as well be with the guy who's basically the poster child for punk behavior by NFL players...

Sounds good, as long as we're clear that Pacman is getting treated differently because the media has focused on him.

Can you name anybody else in the league with a rap sheet as long as his?? So if you're gonna go after criminal behavior, it makes perfect sense to go after the biggest offender first...

Rap sheet? He was arrested twice. Are you saying there are no current players that haven't been arrested twice? Please.

Besides, he's not being held to a different standard, other players have either already been suspended, or face likely suspension in the near future... the standard is the same for every player in the NFL, and is clearly spelled out...

No, it's not. You're simply wrong.

My daddy raised me to believe that a man's actions have consequences, and if you're not prepared to accept the consequences of a particular action, you should think long and hard before doing it... he was actually VERY big on lecturing me about such things, and of course he was right...

Who cares?

So excuse me if I don't feel sorry for poor, persecuted Pac-Man Jones... it just may be that by suspending him, Goodell will send him a wake-up call, and maybe he won't one day wake up in a prison...

I don't feel sorry for him. I think he should be suspended. Why are you trying to twist the issue? Can you please stay on topic? Or do I have to continually explain what the conversation is about?

 

[theogt]

I don't blame Goodell; you are absoultely right about Goodell not necessarily putting a whole lot of thought into the process, but I think Goodell wanted to try and put a stop to all this nonsense; Tagliabue never had to deal with the volume of player-related incidents such as this, and Goodell has just had this sprung on him out of left field... I was hoping that the players would realize that they have to keep their noses clean, but I guess that is not happening.

All of the incidents that Pacman was punished for happened during Tagliabue's tenure. Almost all of the incidents that happened listed in the document happened during Tagliabue's tenure. Goodell didn't "just [have] this sprung on him out of left field." He chose to act. He could have punished all of the players, but he chose to single out a few.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

People are overlooking the fact that this is a new policy.

 

[burmafrd]

you gotta realize that OGT does not believe in anything unless some lawyer approves of it. He is so laughably wrong about public opinion. Everyone I have heard talk about it are OVERJOYED that Goodall is coming down on them like a ton of bricks. OGT is just so totally out of touch its pathetic.