Pacman's Argument on Appeal

[silverbear]

Everyone deserves fairness.

And this punk is getting it... he doesn't seem to LIKE it, though...

I would expect my job to have a clear outline of what is expected of me, and clear direction on what would happen if I did not live up to my end of the bargain.

And he did... he knew he had to report his arrests, he did not do so... and he got suspended for breaking that rule...

It really is just that simple, and when it's all boiled down, your only complaint seems to be that you think the punishment was too HARSH...

Well, I disagree, and it would seem that most folks in here, not to mention on other Cowboys boards I frequent, disagree with you as well...

If I was the commissioner, I would have gotten a more stringent policy approved first, with clear guidelines as to what is expected and what the penalties are.

The Commissioner of EVERY major sport is given discretion as to the severity of punishment... the assorted leagues WANTED it that way, and it's a good policy...

I would not go around with reactionary rulings that are excessively harsh (when looked at in line with precedent) and unfair, in that PacMan had no way of knowing that the penalty would be this harsh.

You say that as if you think Pac-Man would have been a choir boy if he knew how long his suspension would be... are you THAT stupid??

You set the punishment first - don't just make it up on the fly.

What, you think the league should spell out the specific punishment for each specific infraction??

You think there should be a section in there that says, "if you get arrested 5 times within x amount of time, and fail to report two arrests, then you get a season suspension, to be reviewed after ten games, depending on the outcome of your criminal trials"??

You can't tie the Commissioner's hands that way, because there will ALWAYS be some situation crop up that has never cropped up before... there is no precedent for the specific behavior this thug has engaged in, how in God's name can you expect a precedent for punishing such behavior??

 

[silverbear]

Good post.

<tuning up my best Jack Benny impression>

NOW CUT THAT OUT!!!

 

[silverbear]

and SB continues to own. I thought i said everyone to there cornerS? Am i gonna have to jump in here?

What are you gonna do, suspend me?? I'll sue you...

It's not FAIR, I was in bed catching up on my rest when you sent everybody into their corners, I didn't have a chance to get my shots in... yeah, I can see me winning this one at trial...

If that defense doesn't work, I can argue that you're denying me my God-given right to jack up my post count...

 

[gimmesix]

A letter from Pacman's attorneys (Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P. -- one of the largest firms in the world) to the league regarding Pacman's appeal has been made public.

http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN7239256.PDF

In summary, the argument addressed in the letter is that Pacman's suspension is unprecedented. The argument is obvious, but the way they're going about it is pretty smart.

Pacman's suspension was based on four events:

1. A 2006 charge for obstruction of justice (which is pending).
2. Failure to report this charge for obstruction of justice.
3. A 2006 charge for disorderly conduct and public intoxiation (which was deferred).
4. Failure to report a charge for possession of marijuana (which was dismissed).

Since it is obviously Pacman's attorneys that made this public, is it not possible that this "synopsis" of the reasons for his suspension is not complete?

His attorneys might have boiled it down for their purposes to these four events, but that does not mean they were all Goodell used to determine he should receive year's penalty. In fact, I would guess that there is a preponderance of evidence that was used and not just these cut-and-dried "events."

It is smart of Pacman's attorneys to base their defense on these events and to get that defense out to make it look like Goodell overreacted.

 

[dargonking999]

What are you gonna do, suspend me?? I'll sue you...

It's not FAIR, I was in bed catching up on my rest when you sent everybody into their corners, I didn't have a chance to get my shots in... yeah, I can see me winning this one at trial...

If that defense doesn't work, I can argue that you're denying me my God-given right to jack up my post count...

lol, well go to your corners now! lol

 

[theogt]

You could cut the irony in this post with a knife...

I suggest you look up the words "irony" and "myopic," because it's clear that you're mistaken as to their meaning.

 

[kmd24]

I would like to make it clear that I am in no way defending Jones nor suggesting that his suspension is without merit. However, I do have a couple of thoughts I wanted to share.

1) For those arguing that the NFL is like an employer in a right-to-work/hire state, I'm not entirely certain that the analogy is correct. First of all, the player is ostensibly the employee of his team, in which case the Commissioner's office is more like a governing body or a licensing board. That said, the CBA is with the league and not the individual teams, so it's not the same as your normal corporation/union agreement either.

2) If Jones has any beef at all, it is with the NFLPA.
a) First, the NFLPA has a responsibility to him to see that his suspension is "fitting." If 283 other offenses occurred (most likely by fewer than 283 players) and there are no cases of comparable punishment, then perhaps the NFLPA should be arguing on Pacman's behalf. After all, this suspension policy looks like it may jeopardize a tidy sum of players' salaries, and the number one job of the NFLPA is insuring player compensation. If the NFLPA takes the stance that harsh suspensions now may prevent killing the proverbial golden-egg-laying goose, I would agree that such a stance is a reasonable one.
b) The NFLPA is largely at fault for agreeing to what appears to be free reign on the commissioner's part to levy whatever penalties he sees fit for player actions. If the CBA contains language that specifically addresses drugs, then it can and should also contain language to address criminal behavior. It is to everyone's benefit to address this issue directly.

3) Two of the charges listed by Jones's lawyer are specifically covered by the Substance Abuse program in the CBA, and one of those charges (marajuana possession) was dismissed. Addressing those charges outside of the existing policy is double jeopardy, and I would certainly object to it if I were Pacman's lawyer.

I'm not a fan of Pacman Jones. OTOH, I do believe in due process, which I think may be lacking in this instance (specifically on point 3 above).

 

[silverbear]

I suggest you look up the words "irony" and "myopic," because it's clear that you're mistaken as to their meaning.

I have a pretty firm grasp of the English language, thank you very much, and stand behind what I wrote... YOUR view is the one that's short-sighted, and as such, your accusing anybody in this thread of myopia is highly ironic...

 

[silverbear]

I would like to make it clear that I am in no way defending Jones nor suggesting that his suspension is without merit. However, I do have a couple of thoughts I wanted to share.

1) For those arguing that the NFL is like an employer in a right-to-work/hire state, I'm not entirely certain that the analogy is correct. First of all, the player is ostensibly the employee of his team, in which case the Commissioner's office is more like a governing body or a licensing board. That said, the CBA is with the league and not the individual teams, so it's not the same as your normal corporation/union agreement either.

I'm not sure that's true, in the sense that I'm pretty certain the teams are covered by the CBA too... the individual teams collectively make up "management" in this situation, just as the individual players collectively make up "labor"...

2) If Jones has any beef at all, it is with the NFLPA.
a) First, the NFLPA has a responsibility to him to see that his suspension is "fitting." If 283 other offenses occurred (most likely by fewer than 283 players) and there are no cases of comparable punishment, then perhaps the NFLPA should be arguing on Pacman's behalf. After all, this suspension policy looks like it may jeopardize a tidy sum of players' salaries, and the number one job of the NFLPA is insuring player compensation. If the NFLPA takes the stance that harsh suspensions now may prevent killing the proverbial golden-egg-laying goose, I would agree that such a stance is a reasonable one.

I believe that's EXACTLY their stance, the reason they're behind the NFL on this one... this whole crackdown on antisocial behavior is economically driven, a desire not to drive away their sponsors... none of their players will make the big money if that happens...

b) The NFLPA is largely at fault for agreeing to what appears to be free reign on the commissioner's part to levy whatever penalties he sees fit for player actions. If the CBA contains language that specifically addresses drugs, then it can and should also contain language to address criminal behavior. It is to everyone's benefit to address this issue directly.

Uhhh, I do believe that the newest CBA does include language that addresses criminal behavior, in fact it's the basis for this suspension...

3) Two of the charges listed by Jones's lawyer are specifically covered by the Substance Abuse program in the CBA, and one of those charges (marajuana possession) was dismissed. Addressing those charges outside of the existing policy is double jeopardy, and I would certainly object to it if I were Pacman's lawyer.

I'm not a fan of Pacman Jones. OTOH, I do believe in due process, which I think may be lacking in this instance (specifically on point 3 above).

Where your argument falls apart is the two instances where he failed to report his arrests to the league office... the rules are very clear about that, he broke them, and in doing so, subjected himself to the possibility of suspension...

Perhaps if the two charges to which you refer were the only ones against him, you'd have a solid point, but there are those two other charges, and they justify the action taken...

I can appreciate that you took a calm overview of the situation, unlike so many other critics of what's going on here...

 

[superpunk]

I suggest you look up the words "irony" and "myopic," because it's clear that you're mistaken as to their meaning.

Your mom goes to college.






Punk.

I would like to make it clear that I am in no way defending Jones nor suggesting that his suspension is without merit. However, I do have a couple of thoughts I wanted to share.

It's a good thing you clarified that. We've got plenty of mind-readers around here.

2) If Jones has any beef at all, it is with the NFLPA.
a) First, the NFLPA has a responsibility to him to see that his suspension is "fitting." If 283 other offenses occurred (most likely by fewer than 283 players) and there are no cases of comparable punishment, then perhaps the NFLPA should be arguing on Pacman's behalf. After all, this suspension policy looks like it may jeopardize a tidy sum of players' salaries, and the number one job of the NFLPA is insuring player compensation. If the NFLPA takes the stance that harsh suspensions now may prevent killing the proverbial golden-egg-laying goose, I would agree that such a stance is a reasonable one.
b) The NFLPA is largely at fault for agreeing to what appears to be free reign on the commissioner's part to levy whatever penalties he sees fit for player actions. If the CBA contains language that specifically addresses drugs, then it can and should also contain language to address criminal behavior. It is to everyone's benefit to address this issue directly.

I agree fully. That isn't the only party he should be upset with, but it is the party charged with defending him and making sure he is treated fairly.

I'm not a fan of Pacman Jones. OTOH, I do believe in due process, which I think may be lacking in this instance (specifically on point 3 above).

Could you explain further what you mean by due process in this instance? Is it with regard to the actual law, or soemthing different?

The point where it becomes unfair is where Pac Man is made an example of, for what appears to be the unfortunate fact that the media has latched onto him, and so his shortcomings are more visible than anyone else's.

The way I view it is such: You and ten other men have a history of shoplifting. The penalty for shoplifting is accepted to be 30 days in jail. You and the ten men continue to get caught, but you maybe more often than the others. So, eventually, the judge decides to make an example of you, and chops YOUR hand off. There was no notice that this penalty was to be levied, otherwise that may have served as a stronger deterrent. because while you may be willing to shoplift and serve 30 days, certainly you would avoid it if you knew in advance that you were going to lose your hand.

Maybe an overly elaborate illustration, but I think it conveys the point. Goodell should not be able to invent punishments on the spot. Precedents and agreements are created for a reason, and that is to ensure fairness in future dealings. I believe PacMan is getting a raw deal, even if he deserves a harsh punishment. That in no way means I defend PacMan, or anything he has done - it just means I believe in treating all people fairly, and I'm against any situation where a man wields the kind of dictatorial power Goodell is showing with this grandstanding suspension. PacMan did nothing more horrifying than his predecessors, including many Cowboys. His suspension's weight appears to be influenced solely by the media coverage and "backlash". That is not a justifiable reason for making his suspension record-setting harsh. Cleaning up the league is one thing, and ultimately this will probably do alot of good. I guess if you believe the ends justify the means, you can accept that.

 

[burmafrd]

Pacman has NO ONE but himself to blame. 10 separate incidents in 2 years.
NO OTHER PLAYER has been in trouble more often in such a short period of time. He DESERVES harsher treatment for that alone. He SHOULD get more punishment then anyone else. Seems completely logical to me.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I would like to make it clear that I am in no way defending Jones nor suggesting that his suspension is without merit. However, I do have a couple of thoughts I wanted to share.

1) For those arguing that the NFL is like an employer in a right-to-work/hire state, I'm not entirely certain that the analogy is correct. First of all, the player is ostensibly the employee of his team, in which case the Commissioner's office is more like a governing body or a licensing board. That said, the CBA is with the league and not the individual teams, so it's not the same as your normal corporation/union agreement either.

Like Bear said, the CBA is an agreement between the NFLPA and the Owners. However, your correct in that the Commissioner's officer is more of a governing entity. It is responsible for governing management decisions between owners, for the owners, and overall all NFL interests.

2) If Jones has any beef at all, it is with the NFLPA.
a) First, the NFLPA has a responsibility to him to see that his suspension is "fitting." If 283 other offenses occurred (most likely by fewer than 283 players) and there are no cases of comparable punishment, then perhaps the NFLPA should be arguing on Pacman's behalf. After all, this suspension policy looks like it may jeopardize a tidy sum of players' salaries, and the number one job of the NFLPA is insuring player compensation. If the NFLPA takes the stance that harsh suspensions now may prevent killing the proverbial golden-egg-laying goose, I would agree that such a stance is a reasonable one.

Pacman never asked the NFLPA to appeal on his behalf. Note that it is his lawyers representing him, not the NFLPA. By rule, if he had asked, they would have been duty bound to represent him, even if they thought he should accept the punishment.

b) The NFLPA is largely at fault for agreeing to what appears to be free reign on the commissioner's part to levy whatever penalties he sees fit for player actions. If the CBA contains language that specifically addresses drugs, then it can and should also contain language to address criminal behavior. It is to everyone's benefit to address this issue directly.

The personal conduct policy is different from the substance abuse policy. They each have a fine and disciplinary schedule attached to them. And at the end of every policy, it ends that "discipline" is at the discretion of the Commissioner. Where the NFLPA pooched the boot is that they fail to address the appeal situation. The NFLPA in working with the NFL to modify the personal conduct policy failed to address that if a player attempts to appeal, that the appeal should be heard by an arbitrator. Instead, the appeal is heard by the Commish; the very man who handed out the punishment. And the only way they can change that is by going back to the table to negotiate the CBA.

3) Two of the charges listed by Jones's lawyer are specifically covered by the Substance Abuse program in the CBA, and one of those charges (marajuana possession) was dismissed. Addressing those charges outside of the existing policy is double jeopardy, and I would certainly object to it if I were Pacman's lawyer.

The only way he can be in the substance abuse program is if he failed a test. At this point, I don't know that he has. Haven't read anything regarding that so far. But even if he's in the substance abuse program, it is the violation of the personal conduct policy that warranted the suspension. Not substance abuse.

I'm not a fan of Pacman Jones. OTOH, I do believe in due process, which I think may be lacking in this instance (specifically on point 3 above).

Due process in the sense as far the court system processing his cases? He's getting that. But the Commish, even when Tags was in office, doesn't have to wait for his legal issues to clear up before handing out discipline.

 

[Doomsday101]

Superpunk, I think you&#8217;re leaving out a part. When your convicted of a crime and sentenced there is no one standard punshisment and it can range in length.
You mentioned shoplifting there is no one set jail time for that it can range from 30 days to 1 year and almost every other crime is the same way there is no one sentence that fits all and they do tend to vary when everything is taken into account. In the case of Pacman he has a long history of problem and that history has now caught up to him.

 

[kmd24]

Uhhh, I do believe that the newest CBA does include language that addresses criminal behavior, in fact it's the basis for this suspension...

I have been unable to find a personal conduct penalty schedule on the NFLPA website. From what I can tell, the CBA only addresses the behavior, and not the amount of fines of length of suspensions. In contrast, suspension lengths are spelled out in the substance abuse policy.

Where your argument falls apart is the two instances where he failed to report his arrests to the league office... the rules are very clear about that, he broke them, and in doing so, subjected himself to the possibility of suspension...

Perhaps if the two charges to which you refer were the only ones against him, you'd have a solid point, but there are those two other charges, and they justify the action taken...

I am unaware of PJ's history in the substance abuse program, but assuming the listed offenses were his first under the policy, Jones would receive at most a four game suspension. Your stance amounts to saying that the failure to report the arrests merits a 12 game suspension.

A better argument against Jones is that he's been interviewed by police something like ten times since joining the league, arrested a few times, and charged at least twice (not sure if the Vegas incident has resulted in charges yet, but it most likely will). Couple that with the fact that the charges have been increasing in their seriousness, and the commissioner is well justified by the suspension he levied, IMO.

That said, I'd still rather see the terms of the policy laid out in a manner similar to the substance abuse policy. The current policy is far to open to the commissioner's subjectivity, and the time to combat that is before - not after - an unfair penalty is doled out.

 

[theogt]

I have a pretty firm grasp of the English language, thank you very much, and stand behind what I wrote... YOUR view is the one that's short-sighted, and as such, your accusing anybody in this thread of myopia is highly ironic...

Wow. It's short-sighted to believe that the league should establish clear guidelines for punishment?

I'm not saying players should be punished more or less. I'm just saying it should be clear what constitutes sufficient punishable behavior.

How, again, is this short-sighted?

 

[WoodysGirl]

Personal Conduct Policy ​

General Policy ​

Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the League depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator. The League is committed to promoting and encouraging lawful conduct and to providing a safe and professional workplace for its employees.

Persons Covered by Policy
The following persons ("Covered Persons") shall be considered subject to this Policy: (i) all players under contract; (ii) all full-time employees of the National Football League, its Member Clubs and related entities; (iii) all rookie players once they are selected in the NFL College Draft; and (iv) all undrafted rookie players, unsigned veterans and other prospective employees once they commence negotiations with a Club concerning employment.

Prohibited Conduct
It will be considered conduct detrimental for Covered Persons to engage in (or to aid, abet or conspire to engage in or to incite) violent and/or criminal activity. Examples of such Prohibited Conduct include, without limitation: any crime involving the use or threat of physical violence to a person or persons; the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; possession or distribution of a weapon in violation of state or federal law; involvement in "hate crimes" or crimes of domestic violence; theft, larceny or other property crimes; sex offenses; racketeering; money laundering; obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; fraud; and violent or threatening conduct. Additionally, Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL.

Persons Charged With Criminal Activity
Any Covered Person arrested for or charged with conduct prohibited by this policy will be required to undergo a consultation and additional counseling as directed. Failure to comply with the consultation and counseling (including being arrested for or charged with additional criminal activity during the evaluation and counseling period) shall itself be conduct detrimental to the National Football League and shall be punishable by fine or suspension at the discretion of the Commissioner.

Disposition of the Criminal Proceeding
Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nolo contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner. Such discipline may include a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League. Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a second criminal violation will be suspended without pay or banished for a period of time to be determined by the Commissioner.

Persons Engaged in Violent Activity in the Workplace
Every employee is entitled to a safe and professional workplace free of criminal behavior, violence and threats against personal safety. Criminal conduct in the workplace or against other employees is prohibited. Any Covered Person who commits or threatens violent acts against co-workers, regardless of whether an arrest is made or criminal charges are brought, shall be subject to evaluation, counseling and discipline, including termination of employment.

Duty to Report Prohibited Conduct
To ensure the effective administration of the policy, the League must be advised when a Covered Person engages in Prohibited Conduct. The obligation to report an arrest or criminal charge extends to both the person involved and to the Club or League entity for which he or she works.
When a person subject to this policy is arrested or charged with Prohibited Conduct, that information must be reported to the Club and NFL Security at (800) NFL-1099. Failure to report an incident will constitute conduct detrimental and will be taken into consideration in the final determination of discipline under this policy.

Appeal Rights
Any person disciplined under this policy shall have a right of appeal, including a hearing, before the Commissioner or his designee. Except for the enforcement of a suspension, no other requirements set forth in the policy will be stayed pending the completion of the appeal.

 

[burmafrd]

A whole lot clearer then our current so called justice system. Lawyer types are the last people you want involved in anything that you want easily understood.

 

[kmd24]

The only way he can be in the substance abuse program is if he failed a test.

That's incorrect. A drug-related arrest is cause for entry to the program (see article I.D.1.b of the Substance Abuse policy.).

Due process in the sense as far the court system processing his cases? He's getting that. But the Commish, even when Tags was in office, doesn't have to wait for his legal issues to clear up before handing out discipline.

Due process in the sense that the latest incident in Vegas is really what prompted the suspension, and at the time of the suspension, there wasn't clear evidence that Jones had engaged in any of the prohibited conduct under the Rules and Regulations of the Conduct Policy. He probably did, but no charges were filed at the time of suspension, and I'm not even sure that PJ's role in the incident was clearly known.

Goodell was certainly within the CBA to suspend Jones when he did, but it creates an interesting precedent to begin punishing players before they are even charged with a crime.

 

[kmd24]

Personal Conduct Policy​

Thanks for posting that. My point is that the SA policy spells out the length of suspensions and the circumstances that trigger the suspensions.

The PC policy is essentially "It's up to the Commissioner."​

 

[silverbear]

I have been unable to find a personal conduct penalty schedule on the NFLPA website. From what I can tell, the CBA only addresses the behavior, and not the amount of fines of length of suspensions. In contrast, suspension lengths are spelled out in the substance abuse policy.

OK, I misunderstood what you were getting at... you're right, the punishment of offenders under this new behavior policy is left up to the Commissioner's discretion, while the punishment of drug offenders is clearly spelled out...

I have no idea why they approached the two differently, I can only speculate that maybe the NFL and the NFLPA didn't feel they could anticipate all the possible offenses that might come across the Commissioner's desk... perhaps once they get a feel for what kind of problems he'll be dealing with, they'll feel better qualified to set up a punishment policy...

Again, that IS entirely speculation on my part...

I am unaware of PJ's history in the substance abuse program, but assuming the listed offenses were his first under the policy, Jones would receive at most a four game suspension. Your stance amounts to saying that the failure to report the arrests merits a 12 game suspension.

Well, that's not QUITE my stance... I'm saying that the league is cracking down on criminal/antisocial behavior, and this is a VERY serious problem right now, so I can justify some draconian penalties being levied against the early offenders, IOW making an example of them...

A better argument against Jones is that he's been interviewed by police something like ten times since joining the league, arrested a few times, and charged at least twice (not sure if the Vegas incident has resulted in charges yet, but it most likely will). Couple that with the fact that the charges have been increasing in their seriousness, and the commissioner is well justified by the suspension he levied, IMO.

I think the two offenses driving this suspension are the incidents where he failed to report his arrests (a measure of how deeply stupid the young man is-- did he think those arrests could be kept hush-hush??), but I think you're completely right that the number of times he's gotten his name in the paper factored into the severity of the suspension... and perhaps it should, IMO...

That said, I'd still rather see the terms of the policy laid out in a manner similar to the substance abuse policy. The current policy is far to open to the commissioner's subjectivity, and the time to combat that is before - not after - an unfair penalty is doled out.

I think the league intended to leave it open to that subjectivity, but I can agree that it would be better to have such things spelled out...

Congratulations, you have just made the first argument against the way the league is doing things right now that resonated with me, that made sense to me...